India Glycols Ltd vs Employees' Provident Fund ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2621 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

             Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2022 (M/S)

India Glycols Ltd.                              ..... Petitioner
                                    Versus
Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Ors.
                                    .....Respondents

Present:
      Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, the learned counsel for the
      respondents.

              Date of hearing and order: 24.08.2022

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner being a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the interest accrue on INR 46,41,595.00, which was paid by the petitioner in lieu of the provident fund dues determined by respondent no. 2.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to consider and decided the letter/ representation dated 19.07.2022 preferred by the petitioner seeking payment of accrued interest.

3. The facts of the case are not disputed at this stage. On 16.03.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred on respondent no. 2 under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the P.F. Act for brevity) initiate an

enquiry and issued notice to the petitioner to submit itself to investigation. On 23.03.2004, the petitioner appeared before the authorities and then the proceeding under the P.F. Act, carried on. On 13.09.2004, the proceedings were culminated by respondent no. 2 fixing liability on petitioner. The petitioner preferred review application. Finally, it preferred an appeal being ATA No. 192 (4)/2005 before the appellate tribunal which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2050 of 2010 (M/S). The said writ petition came before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the Court on 29.12.2010 issued notice and also passed the interim order which is quoted below:-

"In addition to what has already been deposited, the petitioner will deposit 50% of the balance amount before the authority concerned within six weeks from today. It is made clear that in the event the petition is dismissed, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest also and, in the event, the petitioner succeeds, the Corporation will pay interest on the amount so deposited."

Thereafter, the writ petition was decided on merit by the another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court holding as follows:-

"16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The entire proceedings and consequential impugned orders are quashed, being violative of principles of natural justice and adherence of an effective opportunity of hearing, being provided to the petitioner. Quashing of the impugned orders, would be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents, to initiate a de novo proceedings, but only after giving due and effective

show cause notice to the petitioner which his to be decided exclusively on its own merits."

4. Thus, it is apparent from the record that after disposal of the writ application filed by the petitioner before this Court on merit, the petitioner is not only entitled to recover the money he has deposited at the time of passing of the interim order before the appellate authority as well as this Court but he is also entitled to a interest on the same. Further, neither interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench nor final judgment reflects any particular rate of interest to be charged.

5. In that view of the matter, respondent no. 3-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has to take decision on the same and for that purpose they may refer Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Interest Act, 1978 and shall decide the representation filed by the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and production of document by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with relevant documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall produce copy of the writ petition before respondent no. 3 within a period of 10 days.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

7. No order as to costs.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) (Urgent copies as per Rules) PV