Delhi High Court - Orders
Dina Nath Public School vs Assistant P.F. Commissioner And Anr on 15 December, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15
$~15 to 18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 592/2012 & CM APPLs. 1255/2012 & 45122/2021
DINA NATH PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohak Bhadana, Advocate
(M: 9810613822)
versus
ASSISTANT P.F. COMMISSIONER AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Mr. Brahm
Kumar Pandey, Mr. D. Rajeshwar
Rao & Mr. Chirag Mittal, Advocates
for R-1 (M: 8920666719)
Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocate for R-3
(M: 9560455273)
Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocate for
DHCLSC/R-3 (M-9560455273)
(16) WITH
+ W.P.(C) 4828/2014 & 45124/2021
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Mr. Brahm
Kumar Pandey, Mr. D. Rajeshwar
Rao & Mr. Chirag Mittal, Advocates
versus
DINA NATH PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohak Bhadana, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocate for R-3
(M: 9560455273)
Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocate for
DHCLSC/R-3.
(17) WITH
+ W.P.(C) 5497/2016
DINA NATH PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohak Bhadana, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 592/2012 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15
versus
ASSISTANT P.F. COMMISSIONER FARIDABAD AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Mr. Brahm
Kumar Pandey, Mr. D.Rajeshwar Rao
& Mr.Chirag Mittal, Advocates for R-
1 (M: 8920666719)
Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocate for R-3
(M: 9560455273)
Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocate for
DHCLSC/R-3.
(18) AND
+ W.P.(C) 7048/2016 & CM APPL. 45125/2021
MANAV SEVA SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amith Shaji and Ms. Arya
Krishnan, proxy counsel for Mr. Tom
Joseph (M: 9899234139)
versus
THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Mr. Brahm
Kumar Pandey, Mr. D.Rajeshwar Rao
& Mr.Chirag Mittal, Advocates for R-
1 (M: 8920666719)
Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocate for R-3
(M: 9560455273)
Mr. Gaurav Ray, Advocate for
DHCLSC/R-3.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 15.12.2021
1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.
2. Vide previous order dated 23rd November, 2021, this Court had noted W.P.(C) 592/2012 Page 2 of 7 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15 that W.P.(C.) 5497/2016 and W.P.(C.) 7048/2016, which had been directed to be disposed of within four months, vide order of the Supreme Court dated 23rd March, 2021 in Civil Appeal No.1053/2021 titled Dina Nath Public School v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors., had not been placed before this Court till 23rd November, 2021. The matters had been listed on an office note, claiming there had been an oversight by the Registry. Accordingly, the concerned officials in the Writ Branch, High Court of Delhi, had been asked to submit a report explaining the delay of more than six months in listing these matters.
3. Pursuant to the said order, the worthy Registrar General has placed on record a report today. The report states that the Registrar (Writs), Mr. K.K. Sharma inquired into the matter. One Judicial Assistant and one Dealing Assistant had given their explanation as to the manner in which the order of the Supreme Court dated 23rd March, 2021 was received in the Branch. The Judicial Assistant had received the order on 13th April, 2021 and the same was kept in a folder for necessary action. The Dealing Assistant concerned had tested positive for COVID-19 and was on leave till 11th May, 2021.
4. In the interregnum, during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to shortage of staff and inadvertence, the folder in which the Supreme Court order was kept, is stated to have been mixed up with some other files. It was only suddenly revealed on 18th November, 2021, when the said other files were being examined. The worthy Registrar General has recommended that the matter should be referred to the Vigilance Branch, High Court of Delhi.
5. In the order of the Supreme Court dated 23rd March, 2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.1053/2021, the Court had directed disposal of the pending W.P.(C) 592/2012 Page 3 of 7 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15 writ petitions within four months. The said directions reads as under:
"5. In the facts of the present case, as they emerged before the Delhi High Court, it is apparent that the appellant, Dina Nath Public School, is situated in Faridabad, Haryana. Likewise, the second and third respondents are also situated in Faridabad. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, who is a former employee of the school, also stated that it would be more convenient for her to pursue the proceedings before the Delhi High Court as opposed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the parties are all situated at Faridabad and since the Delhi High Court has, as a matter of principle followed its own earlier decision and come to the conclusion that it had territorial jurisdiction, but declined to entertain the writ petition only on the ground of forum non-conveniens, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and to restore the proceedings back to the Delhi High Court for disposal.
6. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench dated 21 November 2016. As a consequence, the writ petition filed before the Single Judge, namely, Writ Petition (Civil) No 5497 of 2016, shall stand restored to the file for disposal on merits.
7. In the meantime, the Court has been apprised of the fact that the second respondent has instituted Writ Petition (Civil) No 7048 of 2016 before the Delhi High Court. In the circumstance, Writ Petition (Civil) No 7048 of 2016, which was filed before the Delhi High Court by the second respondent shall also stand restored to the file of the Single Judge for disposal together with companion writ petition noted above.
8. Mr Shantwanu Singh, learned counsel appearing W.P.(C) 592/2012 Page 4 of 7 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15 on behalf of the second respondent states that the writ petition which was filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP No 6100 of 2017, shall be withdrawn before that High Court so as to enable the second respondent to pursue the writ petition which has been filed before the Delhi High Court.
9. We request the leamed Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to dispose of the pending writ petitions expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months consistent with the exigencies of work."
6. The said order was received by the Registry in the Writ Branch of the Court on 13th April, 2021. Immediately thereafter, the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a lockdown and the Court was functioning with a shortage of staff. Thus, the explanation given by the Judicial Assistant, Ms. Raj Laxmi that the order was misplaced and mixed up with other files appears to be quite plausible. Moreover, the Dealing Assistant, Mr. Chetan Prasad having tested COVID-19 positive, the management of documents at that time may have not been in the usual course.
7. After perusing the explanation given by both the Dealing Assistant and Judicial Assistant and the report of the worthy Registrar General, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the pandemic conditions prevalent in April, 2021 and since the Dealing Assistant himself had tested COVID-19 positive, no further inquiry needs to be initiated in this matter. Both the officers may be given an oral warning by the worthy Registrar General and the Registrar (Writs) and the matter may be closed. The report may be tagged with the record of the lead case in these matters being W.P.(C.) 592/2012. This report shall be retained in a sealed cover.
8. In so far as the merits of the matters are concerned, these are matters that arise out of orders passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate W.P.(C) 592/2012 Page 5 of 7 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15 Tribunal (hereinafter "EPFAT") in respect of the applicability of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter "EPF Act") to Dina Nath Public School/Petitioner (hereinafter "DNPS") and Manav Seva Public School (hereinafter "MSPS").
9. W.P.(C.) 5497/2016 challenges the order passed by the EPFAT dated 18th April, 2016 in ATA No.07(16) 2013 titled M/s Dina Nath Public School v. APFC, Faridabad by which order No. Compliance- I/HR/14314/RC-II/7A/121 of 2010-11, dated 29th October, 2012 passed by the APFC, Faridabad, has been upheld by the EPFAT. Therefore, the merger of the two institutions, namely, DNPS and MSPS, for the purposes of applicability of the EPF Act, has been upheld by the EPFAT. Similarly, W.P.(C) 7048/2016 filed by MSPS challenges the same order of the EPFAT dated 18th April, 2016, merging the said two schools.
10. Insofar as W.P.(C) 4828/2014 is concerned, this was a writ petition filed by the EPFO challenging the interim order of the EPFAT dated 26th September, 2013 in ATA No.07(16) 2013 titled M/s Dina Nath Public School v. APFC, Faridabad, which has now culminated into the final order dated 18th April, 2016. Since the interim order has now merged into the final order, the challenge to the interim order would no longer survive. Accordingly, while leaving open the contentions of the EPFO to be raised in all the connected writ petitions, W.P.(C) 4828/2014 is disposed of as infructuous. All pending applications in W.P.(C) 4828/2014 are also disposed of.
11. CM APPL.45122/2021 in W.P.(C) 592/2012 and CM APPL.45125/2021 in W.P.(C) 7048/2016, are applications filed by the complainant, seeking impleadment in the said writ petitions. The W.P.(C) 592/2012 Page 6 of 7 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.12.2021 13:23:15 complainant, namely, Ms. Paramjit Kaur had filed the complaint against DNPS and MSPS for violation of the provisions of the EPF Act and is a party in W.P.(C) 5497/2016, i.e., Respondent No.3. Since the complaint which is the genesis of these matters itself was filed by the proposed applicant, she is impleaded as Respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) 7048/2016 and in W.P.(C) 592/2012. These applications are accordingly disposed of.
12. Insofar as CM APPL.1255/2012 in W.P.(C) 592/2012 is concerned, since the matter is now to be finally heard, the stay application is also disposed of as infructuous.
13. Submissions have been heard in part on behalf of the ld. counsel for DNPS in all three petitions.
14. List these petitions for further hearing on 21st January, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. These are part heard matters.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 15, 2021 Mw/Rahul/MS W.P.(C) 592/2012 Page 7 of 7