M/S. Srilab Neo-Packs Private ... vs Employees' Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 751 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                         W.P.(C). No. 223 of 2011
                                               ----------

M/s. Srilab Neo-Packs Private Limited, Bokaro through its Director ......... Petitioner.

Versus

1. Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Ranchi

2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi.

3. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Ranchi

4. Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Ranchi.

5. Mr. Iftikhar Mahmood, General Secretary, All Contractors Mazdoor Union, Bokaro. .......... Respondents.

----------

             CORAM:             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
                                (Through: Video Conferencing)
             For the Petitioner          :     Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate
             For the Respondents         :     Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
                                               -----------
07/ 17.02.2021      Heard the parties.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that order dated 08.10.2010, passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi is nullity in the eyes of law as she was the person who represented the Establishment of EPFO in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner and now acting as an Revisional Authority, has passed the order refusing to intervene in the review application filed by the petitioner as no sufficient ground was made for review.

Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-EPFO emphatically argues that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Merely because the Authority represented the Establishment, she cannot be stopped from passing the final order in the capacity of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance). It has been further argued that there is a provision of Appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") and the petitioner without availing the statutory remedy of Appeal, has rushed to this Court and as such, the writ is not maintainable.

Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly, the Revisional Authority i.e. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) had participated in the proceeding by representing the Establishment and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

On the other hand, the petitioner is aggrieved on the ground that as because the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) at one point of time represented

the Department, she cannot decide the case as a Revisional Authority but he fails to produce any document/ judgment/ rule to establish this fact.

However, as there is provision of statutory Appeal, the petitioner is directed to approach the appropriate Authority by filing an appeal under the provisions of law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the appeal is preferred within the said period under the provisions of Section 7-I of the Act, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner after providing ample opportunity of hearing to him and thereafter, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of filing of the Appeal by the petitioner.

Let it be made clear that since the petitioner has assailed the order of the Revisional Authority before this Court, the Authority concerned is directed to condone the delay, if any, in preferring the statutory Appeal and hear the case of the petitioner on its own merits.

Resultantly, the writ application stands disposed of.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Kunal/-