Itwa India Ltd. vs Assistant Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4278 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                                W.A.No.67 of 2019


JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

14.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28916 of

2010.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that proceedings

were initiated against respondent No.2/M/s. Lakshmi Enterprises,

under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952') and

an order was passed under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952.

Respondent No.2/M/s. Lakshmi Enterprises was working with

respondent No.3/TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur, and the contention

of the appellant/ITW India Limited is that the amount was

deducted from their bills. The undisputed facts further reveal that

an appeal was preferred before the Employees Provident Funds

Appellate Tribunal by the present appellant and the appeal was

dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, by an order dated

19.08.2010, holding that the present appellant was the principal

employer and the amount of Rs.1,70,349/- was rightly deducted

by respondent No.3/TISCO Limited. The aforesaid order passed by

the Tribunal was challenged by filing the writ petition and the

learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground

that the work was executed at Jamshedpur, the appellant is

having an office at Jamshedpur, the appellant has entrusted the

job work to Respondent No.2/ M/s. Lakshmi Enterprises and

agreement has been executed at Jamshedpur and 7-A order was

passed by the authorities situated at Jamshedpur. It was also

observed that an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal, which

is in New Delhi.

It is true that the corporate office of the appellant/ITW India

Limited is certainly in Hyderabad i.e., Merchant Towers, 5, Road

No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The aforesaid fact has not been

disputed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,

respondent No.1 in the present writ appeal. While filing the appeal

before the Tribunal, the address given in the memo of appeal,

which is at page No.23, also reflects that the same address of

having head office at Merchant Towers, 5, Road No.4, Banjara

Hills, was mentioned. Meaning thereby, right from day one, the

present appellant, having its corporate office at Hyderabad, was

prosecuting its remedies under the Act of 1952 read with

Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,

1997 (for short 'the 1997 Rules'). The unamended provision i.e.,

Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules certainly provides for filing of an appeal

at the place where the appellant resides. Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules

has been later on amended, with effect from 14.01.2016, which

provides for filing of the appeal with the Registrar the Tribunal

within whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen. However,

the present case is a case prior to the amendment, which took

place in the year 2016.

In the considered opinion of this court, as the appellant is

having its corporate office at Hyderabad, it was justified in filing

the writ petition before this court and therefore, the order passed

by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, on the

ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, is hereby quashed. The

matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide it

afresh on merits. Office is directed to list the writ petition before

the learned Single Judge on 27.12.2022.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 13.12.2021 JSU