Bombay High Court
Regional Provident Fund vs The Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 16 March, 2021
Author: K.R.Shriram
Bench: K.R.Shriram
Digitally signed
1/4 31.IA-260-2020.doc
by Gauri A.
Gaekwad
Gauri A. Date:
Gaekwad 2021.03.20
11:31:21
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.260 OF 2020
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.400 OF 2012
Regional Provident Fund ....Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. ....Petitioner
V/s.
The Official Liquidator of M/s. Sharp
Industries Limited (In liquidation) ....Respondent
----
None for applicant.
Mr. Mahendhar Aithe, Company Prosecutor present.
----
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
DATED : 16th MARCH 2021 P.C. :
1 Without assistance from the counsel for applicant, this Court went through the application. The application is filed by EPFO through one Ms. Namrata Patil, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The application has corrections including inserting Ms. Patil's name in paragraph 1 and the same has not been initialed by Ms. Patil. Ms. Patil being Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal). Mr. Aithe states that he has not been served a copy of this application, which is dated 7 th January 2020 and despite his request over telephone this morning to applicant's advocate to send a copy of the application by email, it has not been sent.
2 Though it is an application for condonation of delay, the first 9 paragraphs contains everything other than an explanation for condoning Gauri Gaekwad 2/4 31.IA-260-2020.doc the delay. This looks more like an attempt to cover up the humongous delay and failure on the part of applicant to make this application earlier. It is to create a facade of efficiency on their part and blame the Official Liquidator who can do nothing unless applicant gets the delay condoned. I say this because there is no explanation for the delay in filing the affidavit of proof of debt.
3 In the entire application only one sentence is devoted to explain the delay. In paragraph 10, which has only six lines and two sentences, it is only stated "the delay of 5 years, 20 days is not an intentional one but beyond my control and the same has come to my knowledge only on today ".
Therefore, in effect there is no explanation whatsoever by applicant but applicant simply says that it has come to her knowledge only on the date of the application. Just because applicant is EPFO and the authorized signatory is Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner does not mean they do not have to give any explanation but get away by blaming the office of the Official Liquidator.
4 Purely by way of indulgence, I am granting an opportunity to applicant to file another affidavit explaining the delay because to say that Ms. Patil came to know about the matter only on 7 th January 2020 and for 5 years, 20 days she did not even know or nobody in the office of the EPFO knew about the company going into liquidation exposes the sorry state of affairs in the office of EPFO and that the Provident Fund Commissioner has no control over his staff. It also shows the poor workmen are suffering Gauri Gaekwad 3/4 31.IA-260-2020.doc because of the collective irresponsibility of EPFO staff/officers. The affidavit shall be filed and copy served by 12 noon on 25 th March 2021. It is made clear that no extension will be granted.
5 A copy of this order be placed before the Provident Fund Commissioner so that he also realises the kind of applications which are being made from his office which provokes the Court to pass such observations and hopefully he could take corrective measures. 6 The office of Official Liquidator shall also forward a copy of this order to applicant's advocates, the Principal Commissioner, Provident Fund office and also to Ms. Namrata Patil, the one who has verified the application as well as to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India so that he may take it up with all concerned. Applicants do not realise it is poor workmen and employees of the company who are suffering and the Officers of applicant do not probably realise the pain which these workmen and employees go through. 7 In the application it is mentioned that the affidavit of proof of debt dated 17th February 2016 was filed but why no application for condonation of delay was filed all these years is not mentioned. There is no explanation also as to how the delay is only 5 years, 20 days because in paragraph 3 applicant says "again a fresh copy of affidavit of proof of debt dated 17th February 2016 is filed ". I have to note that applicant does not even mention in the application when the company was ordered to be Gauri Gaekwad 4/4 31.IA-260-2020.doc wound up but simply states M/s. Sharp Industries Limited (in Liquidation) was ordered to be wound up in Company Petition No.400 of 2012. 8 I have to also note that office objections have been raised on 27th January 2020 which are yet to be removed by the advocate for applicant.
9 Stand over to 30th March 2021.
(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gauri Gaekwad