Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/22/2021 on 5 August, 2021
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
05.08.2021
WPMS No. 22 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Hybrid Mode) Mr. Shikhar Kacker, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
On culmination of the proceedings under Para 26B of the scheme, called as the "Employees Provident Funds Scheme of 1952", the respondent- workman was determined as to be an employee of the petitioner.
During the course of the arguments, it has reflected that the said order of determination of respondent No. 2, as being an employee of the petitioner, was put to challenge by the petitioner in a Revision, which was dismissed and thereafter, as far as the issue of Para 26B of the Scheme of 1952 is concerned, that has attained finality, qua the petitioner.
As a consequence of the determination made under Para 26B of the said Scheme, an order was passed on 14.05.2019, and later on, by virtue of an implication of the decision taken under Para 26B of the Scheme, the Regional Provident Fund Commission, had passed an order under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, whereby a financial liability to the tune of Rs. 73,920/- and Rs. 1,63,837/- respectively have been imposed on the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders dated 29.10.2020, which has been individually passed in relation to the aforesaid two amounts.
The petitioner has approached this Court, in fact, against the order which had been passed under Section 14B. If the provisions, contained under Section 7-I of the Act is taken into consideration, which is extracted hereunder, the order passed under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, has been made appealable.
7-I. Appeals to Tribunal.--
(1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) of section 1, or section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed." Hence, the statutory remedy, in fact, which was available to the petitioner, was to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 7-I of the Act; the writ petition would not be maintainable, merely because of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Regional Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, has observed that his remedy would be to approach the High Court, that will not be conferring the jurisdiction to maintain the writ petition on that pretext.
In view of the aforesaid embargo of Section 7-I, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable. The petitioner, since has a statutory remedy under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, he may avail the same in accordance with law.
Subject to above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed.
It goes without saying that after the declaration of pandemic situation by the Notification, issued by the Government of India on 24.03.2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court has already taken cognizance to the said fact, that the period of limitation for judicial proceedings, if it is expiring during the period of lockdown, then the limitation has to be condoned by the Courts. This aspect would be considered by the Appellate Forum, while the petitioner prefers an appeal against the impugned order.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 05.08.2021 Mahinder/