Rajasthan High Court
G S Karnawat And Ors vs Ajmer Central Cop. Bank Ltd And on 9 March, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
(1 of 5) [CW-572/2000]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.572/2000
1. G. S. Karnawat S/o Sh. Roop Singh, aged about 53 years,
working as Branch Manager, R/o behind Prakash Clinic, Foy
Sagar Road, Ajmer.
2. Hitesh Mehta S/o Sh. Guman Mal Mehta, aged about 56 years,
Branch Manager, Khailand Branch, R/o Rambla Road, Near Ram
Bhawan, Ajmer.
3. Sampat Singh Jain S/o Sh. U.M. Jain, aged about 45 years,
Clerk cum Godown Keeper, at Kekri Branch of Bank Ajmer, R/o
"Kumtha Gali", Lakhan Kotri, Ajmer.
4. S. K. Panwar S/o Sh. Shanti Swaroop Panwar, aged about 48
years, Cashier-cum-Clerk, Headquarter Ajmer, R/o 135/39,
Adarsh Nagar Railway Station, Vigyan Nagar, Ajmer.
5. Yogendra Singh S/o Sh. K.C. Yadav, aged about 52 years,
Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper, Jaipur Road Branch, Ajmer, R/o
Sabjee Mandi, Kaisar Ganj, Ajmer.
6. S.Sindhu S/o Sh. Ram Singh, aged 48 years, Cashier-cum-
Clerk, Jaipur Road Branch, R/o Housing Board, T-4, Shastri
Nagar, Near Mamta Sweet House, Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., through its
Administrator, Collector, District Ajmer.
2. The Managing Director, Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank
Limited, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria
Mr. Ramesh Chand Bairwa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha Sr. Advocate with
Mr. T P Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment
09/03/2021
(2 of 5) [CW-572/2000]
1. The short controversy involved in the present petition is in
relation to the order passed by the Ajmer Central Co-operative
Bank dated 29.10.1999 whereby it was directed that a recovery of
an amount as mentioned therein be made from the salary of the
petitioners in 23 installments in relation to the amount which was
to be contributed by the employees share and the Provident Fund.
2. Brief facts which require to be noticed are that the
petitioners who were holding different posts in the Ajmer Central
Co-operative Bank are members of the Employees' Provident Fund
Scheme and their deductions to the tune of eight and one-third
per cent were to be made as their part of the contribution in terms
of Section 6 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act of 1952, (in short, "the Act of 1952"). However, the
Bank vide its order dated 06.09.1996 directed a lump sum amount
of Rs.500/- to be deducted from each of the employee working in
the Bank resulting in a dispute arising for which the petitioners
alongwith others submitted representation and after enquiry, an
order was passed on 07.05.1998 by the office of the Regional
Provident Fund, Commissioner holding such lump sum deductions
as unjustified with directions to follow the provisions of Section 6
of the Act of 1952.
3. As the deductions of Rs.500/- lump sum was made from the
employees salary for the period from September, 1996 to July,
1998 whereas deductions as per Section 6 of the Act of 1952 of
eight and one-third per cent were required to be made, the bank
therefore, issued the order of recovery of the aforesaid amount
which was part of the share to be contributed by the employees by
the impugned order.
(3 of 5) [CW-572/2000]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that such
deductions could not have been made in light of Section 12 of the
Act of 1952 and Para 32 of the Employees' Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 (in short, "the Scheme of 1952"). Such recovery of
share of contribution which was on account of the fault of the
Bank could not have been made.
5. This Court vide order dated 21.02.2000 stayed the recovery
amount. The interim order has continued till today and the
recoveries stood stayed. All the six petitioners have already
attained superannuation and have retired.
6. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that as the amount
was part of the contribution to be paid by the employees in terms
of Section 6 of the Act of 1952 and the same had not been paid,
the recovery could be made in view of the Para 32 of the Scheme
of 1952.
7. I have considered the submissions.
8. A look at the Section 12 of the Act of 1952 reads as under:-
"12. Employer not to reduce wages, etc. - No
employer in relation to an establishment to which
any Scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies
shall, by reason only of his liability for the payment
of any contribution to the Fund or the Insurance
Fund or any charges under this Act or the Scheme
or the Insurance Scheme, reduce, whether directly
or indirectly, the wages of any employee to whom
the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies or
the total quantum of benefits in the nature of old
age pension, gratuity, provident fund or life
insurance to which the employees is entitled under
the terms of his employment, express or implied."
(4 of 5) [CW-572/2000]
9. Para 32 of the Scheme of 1952 reads as under:-
"32. Recovery of a member's share of
contribution. -- (1) The amount of a member's
contribution paid by the employer or a contractor
shall, notwithstanding the provisions in this
Scheme or any law for the time being in force or
any contract to the contrary, be recoverable by
means of deduction from the wages of the member
and not otherwise:
Provided that no such deduction may be
made from any wage other than that which is paid
in respect of the period or part of the period in
respect of which the contribution is payable:
Provided further that the employer or a
contractor shall be entitled to recover the
employee's share from a wage other than that
which is paid in respect of the period for which the
contribution has been paid or is payable where the
employees has in writing given a false declaration
at the time of joining service with the said
employer or a contractor that he was not already a
member of the Fund:
Provided further that where no such deduction has
been made on account of an accidental mistake or
a clerical error, such deduction may, with the
consent in writing of the Inspector be made from
the subsequent wages.
(2) Deduction made from the wages of a member
paid on daily, weekly or fortnightly basis should be
totalled up to indicate the monthly deductions.
(3) Any sum deducted by an employer or the
contractor from the wages of an employee under
this Scheme shall be deemed to have been
entrusted to him for the purpose of paying the
contribution in respect of which it was deducted."
(5 of 5) [CW-572/2000]
10. Thus, on the conjoint reading of both the provisions, it is
apparent that if a liability for the payment of contribution has been
fixed on the employer, the same cannot be recovered from the
employees in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 1952, however, if
the employee does not on his own deposit his contribution, the
recovery can be made from him in terms of Para 32 of the Scheme
of 1952.
11. In the present case as per the order passed by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan dated 07.05.1998, the
Bank has been fastened with the liability after passing an order
under Section 7A of the Act of 1952. Thus, such a liability could
not have been recovered from employee by reducing the salary of
the petitioners as per Section 12 of the Act of 1952 and the order
impugned therefore, is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly
set aside. As the recovery was already stayed by this Court, the
interim order passed by this Court is made absolute.
12. Learned counsel submits that aforesaid findings should be
limited to petitioners alone. After a long lapse of time, this court is
of the view that this order shall be limited to the petitioners alone
who have approached this Court in time and would not be
applicable on others from whom recovery has already been made.
13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
14. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of. No
costs.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAURABH YADAV /670/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
