Allahabad High Court
Prayagraj Development Authority vs Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner ... on 6 May, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11589 of 2022 Petitioner :- Prayagraj Development Authority Respondent :- Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Paul Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Amit Kumar Singh,Sachindra Upadhyay Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Present petition has been filed seeking a direction upon respondent no.1 to deal with and decide the petitioner's objection (described as preliminary objection), filed in case bearing diary No. 22/2018 under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is not an establishment as defined under section 2A of the Act. It claims to be a constituent of U.P. Housing and Development Code constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Second, it has been submitted the petitioner had not engaged any construction or other worker, directly. The petitioner had only entered into separate agreements with registered contractors. They had engaged workmen. Therefore, those contractors were principal employers for the purposes of the Act. The petitioner may not be liable for deductions that were required to be made by such principal employer. Third, it has been submitted that the proceedings cannot continue against the petitioner without first impleading all the contractors engaged by the petitioner. Fourth, referring to Section 22 of the Buildings and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, it has been submitted that in any case by the virtue of that provision of law, the petitioner's liability under the Act, if any, came to an end in light of provisions of Section 16 (1)(c) of the Act.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Provident Fund authorities, submits that the Act does not contemplate decision to be made under section 7A of the Act, in two parts. No statutory right exists to maintain a preliminary objection. Second, it has been objected, in any case the objections raised by the petitioner (as noted above) are partly factual and partly legal. Unless the factual part of the objection is first proven by leading adequate evidence, no conclusion in law may ever arise. Therefore, it has been submitted that no direction may be issued by the Writ Court for bifurcation of the proceedings under section 7A of the Act in two parts, one to deal with preliminary objection and the other with the objection on merit.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, since the proceedings are still pending before respondent no.1, no final conclusion is being recorded by the Court on the merit of the objections raised by the petitioner. At the same time, it is difficult to outrightly accept the first objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not an establishment but only a unit of the U.P. Housing Board. In any case, that and the other objections raised by the petitioner are such as may require evidence to be led before any final conclusion may be drawn with respect to the same. Thus, it may neither be open to the Court, at this stage, to reach a conclusion that the petitioner is or is not an establishment. Further, it may not be open to the Court to reach a conclusion whether the petitioner was a principal employer or not and whether the provisions of the Cess Act were applicable and whether exemption arising under section 16 (1)(c) of the Act was available to the petitioner.
Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to canvas its objections as raised in the present petition, before the respondent no.1, the present petition is disposed of with the observation that the authority is not required to decide the objections being raised by the petitioner by way of preliminary decision. However, objections, as noted above, if pressed by the petitioner, may necessarily be dealt with by the said respondent at the time of passing final order.
Needless to add that it may remain open to the petitioner to apply for impleadment of the contractors that may have been engaged by it supported with self certified copies of the contracts. That application, if filed within a period of two weeks from today, may be dealt with and decided on its own merits before proceeding further with the matter.
Subject to the petitioner co-operating in the proceedings, respondent no.1 is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022/Madhurima