Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Bill Forge Pvt Ltd vs The Regional Provident Fund on 16 November, 2021
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 16491 OF 2019 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
BILL FORGE PVT LTD
9C, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA
HOSUR ROAD, JIGANI LINK ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 099
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER- HR & ADMIN,
MR K.CHANDRA SEKHAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.R.ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
RO: BOMMASANDRA -I,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX,
SURVEY NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN,
SINGASANDRA,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 068
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER AT ANNEXURE-H DATED 05.04.2019 CLAIMING
CONTRIBUTION FOR THE PERIOD 09/2014 TO 10/2017
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT EPFO AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure - H dated 05.04.2019 passed by the respondent / EPFO directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.1,66,59,633/- under the respective heads of account within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. By interim order dated 16.04.2019, the operation of the aforesaid impugned order at Annexure - H dated 05.04.2019 was stayed by this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to receipt of the notice issued by the respondent under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the said Act of 1952'), petitioner not only filed statement of objections dated 01.03.2018, but 3 also filed additional statement of objections and documents as well as list of authorities. It is contended that the proceedings / order sheet maintained by the respondent at Annexure - F series will indicate that on 11.03.2019, the respondent concluded the proceedings and reserved the matter for pronouncement of orders. On 29.03.2019, petitioner submitted a letter / application requesting the respondent to reopen the proceedings in the light of the decision of the Apex Court and for permission to produce additional documents by collating the same in the said proceedings. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite petitioner submitting the said letter / application for reopening of the proceedings and for permission to produce additional documents, respondent neither considered nor acceded to the request of the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner in this regard and consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh 4 after providing sufficient opportunity in favour of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections submits that a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondent has considered the said decision of the Apex Court also in addition to the other material on record and has come to the correct conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the respondent as demanded in Annexure - H; it is also contended that in view of the availability of equal efficacious and alternate remedy by way of an appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act of 1952, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
6. A perusal of the material on record including the letter / application at Annexure - G dated 29.03.2019 5 will clearly indicate that the petitioner has requested the respondent to reopen the proceedings and provide an opportunity to the petitioner to produce all such documents to substantiate their contentions in the light of the decision of the Apex Court dated 28.02.2019. It is relevant to state that despite the undisputed fact that this letter / application was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent on 29.03.2019, the respondent has neither considered nor rejected the same and has proceeded to pass the impugned order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to produce additional documents and also without hearing the petitioner subsequent to the matter being reserved for orders and consequently, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh by reopening the proceedings and providing one more opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his contention by producing additional documents in support of his claim. 6
7. Insofar as the contention urged by the respondent that the present petition is not maintainable on account of availability of equal efficacious and alternate remedy by way of appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act of 1952, is concerned, in view of my finding above that the impugned order passed by the respondent is violative of principles of natural justice, I am of the considered opinion that mere availability of equal efficacious and alternate remedy will not come in the way of this Court entertaining this petition and as such, the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed. ii. Impugned order at Annexure - H dated 05.04.2019 passed by the respondent / EPFO, is hereby quashed.
iii. Matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh, in 7 accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations and findings recorded in the impugned order.
iv. Petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 06.12.2021 without awaiting any further notice from the respondent.
v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the
petitioner to submit additional
documents before the respondent during the course of the proceedings.
vi. Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to summon the Enforcement Officer, who submitted the report for the purpose of cross-examination by the petitioner.
vii. Respondent is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from 06.12.2021.
8viii. All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
SD/-
JUDGE SV