Madhya Pradesh High Court
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs President (Presiding) Officer, ... on 21 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR2001MP155, 2001(3)MPHT4, AIR 2001 MADHYA PRADESH 155, (2001) 1 MPLJ 612
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Dipak Misra
ORDER Dipak Misra, J.
1. By order dated 9-4-99 the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and remanded the case to the authority under Section 7A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-petitioner herein, for redetermination of the provident fund amount to be levied on respondent No. 2, establishment. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure P-8. It is noticeable that the Tribunal felt that no adequate opportunity was afforded to the respondent No. 2 in course of hearing. That apart, other reasons were ascribed by the Tribunal. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner preferred a review petition. In review petition no notices were issued and the same was rejected vide order dated 16-8-99.
2. In course of hearing, Mr. Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that he has no grievance to give opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 2 but he has serious objection with regard to the comments expressed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the language used by the Presiding Officer. It is apposite and appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the order which reads as under:--
"It is necessary for the Central Provident Fund Organisation to evolve a procedure for filing a Review and Writ Petition against the order of the Tribunal passed in appeal. However, 7A authority should not get unbriddled power to file a review on only ground because the order of the Tribunal is not to his taste. The 7A authority is advised, if he feels that he knows law more and that the Tribunal by its order is damaging the interest of workers, he should go to the High Court and get his ability tested. Copy of this order be sent to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. The review petition is rejected. One copy be given to the learned standing counsel for the department."
3. Submission of Mr. Sharma is that the Regional Fund Commissioner has deputed an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to file a review. A person who is authorised to file a review can file a review. The adjudicating authority is not expected to take exception to this. However, the adjudicating authority has to have respect for the other adjudicating authorities.
4. The majesty of law requires mutual respect. It enhances the sanctity and sacrosanctity of law. The citizens look up to the authorities to get decisions in respect of their controversies and if there would be different feeling between the authorities which are not worthy of office it will not only be demeaning the prestige and respect of the office in the gaze of the public at large but ultimately a stage may come where an unethical litigant may take advantage of it. Language of judgment must be in good taste, couched with language which reflects not only the prowess of law but also the dignity of legal system. May be Regional Fund Commissioner was affected by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and thought it appropriate to seek review of the order but that does not necessarily mean that the Presiding Officer in his turn should give vent to his personal feelings by opining that if 7A authority feels that he knows law more and that the Tribunal by its order is damaging the interest of the workers he should go to High Court and get his ability tested.
5. An adjudicating authority is expected to have sublime perception and luminous insight instead of a challenging attitude and fighting proclivity. He should remember that he is performing the divine duty and as spoken by many is the embodiment of silent law. The inherent dignity should have its appropriate manifestation in expression of language which should be the epitome of profound depth. It is imperative that there should not even potential impoliteness in any expression in relation to a subordinate forum. It should be faithfully and religiously remembered that divinity and dignity are two basic conceptual aspects of justice and they can not be hurried at any cost. It is the quintessence of justice and has to be given perennial supremacy. Any deviation will create a situation where one would be compelled to ask, what man has made of man. Keeping the aforesaid in view it is expected that every Tribunal should conduct itself with propriety, dignity and ascending divinity. It should always be remembered, to quote William Scroggs in The King Vs. Johnson, (1678) 2:
"..... as "anger does not become a Judge, so neither doth pity, for one is the mark of a foolish woman, as the other is of a passionate man."
6. In this context I may profitably quote Frankfurter who had said :
"For the highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law of which we are all guardians those impersonal convictions that make a society a civilized community, and not the victims of personal rule."
7. At this juncture I may also quote a passage from Editorial, "The Frankfurter Legacy", New York Times :
"History will find greatness in Felix Frankfurter as a justice, not because of the results he reached but because of his attitude towards the process of decision. His guilding lights were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble the end, and dedication to the Court as an institution. Because he was human, Justice Frankfurter did not always live up to his own ideal. But he taught us the lesson that there is importance in the process."
8. I may also usefully quote John Gardner who had expressed thus : "Every judgment is no more than an approximation of the truth, subject to revision * * * If we recognize our judgments as subject to revision, we shall be less inclined to force them down other people's throats, or to back them with bullets * * * The mind has an enormous capacity for error, self-deception, illogic, sloppiness, confusion and silliness. All of these tendencies may be diminished by training, and that, of course, is the function of education."
p9. While dealing with a factual scenario of this nature it would be apposite to refer to the decision rendered in the case of K.P. Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 JLJ 83, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:
"..... The higher Courts every day come across orders of the lower Courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. That is one of the functions of the superior Courts. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and hence provides for appeals and revisions. A Judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity. While doing so, sometimes, he is likely to err. It is well said that a Judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born. And that applies to Judges at all levels from the lowest to the highest. Sometimes the difference in views of the higher and the lower Courts is purely a result of a difference in approach and perception. On such occasions, the lower Courts are not necessarily wrong and the higher Courts always right....."
10. I am conscious that the said decision was rendered in different context but every adjudicating authority can learn from it. It is not to be forgotten that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is also an adjudicating authority under the statute. True it is, at times, he has to defend his action but here also "to err is human" principle applies in full force. It is to be borne in mind that language of a judgment should never be in intemperate language and there should be no disparaging and derogatory remarks. Such comments only expose lack of judicial discipline and every Judge or adjudicating authority must try to avoid it at all costs.
11. Without proceeding further as presently advised, I am inclined to expunge the comments from the impugned order. It is expected that in future the Appellate Tribunal shall couch his order in such a language so that the majesty of law is held high.
12. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs.