Calcutta High Court
Divyajyoti Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs The Assistant P.F. Commissioner And ... on 14 January, 2008
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Basu, J.
1. I have heard the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner and also the learned Advocate representing the Provident Fund Authority over this writ petition.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioner has been regarding computation of the amount payable by the writ petitioner on account of provident fund dues of both employers and employees share. It has been contended by the writ petitioner that the Provident Fund Authorities while computing the amount payable by the writ petitioner made a mistake in law by including the amount paid on account of loading and unloading charges as a component of PF account and so also by taking into account the components of salary, namely, daily allowance, medical allowance of its employees as part and parcel of salary so as to calculate the amount payable by the petitioner.
3. The writ petitioner stated that being aggrieved with the order passed under Section 7A of the Provident Fund Act, the writ petitioner preferred a review as permissible under law raising its grievance over determination done under Section 7A but the authority concerned without application of mind rejected the review application. It has been stated by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in the meantime the Provident Fund Authority had deducted the entire amount from the bank account of the writ petitioner.
4. At the time of hearing of this writ petition, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner with reference to Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund Act submits before me that loading and unloading charges to the outsider cannot be taken as salary payable to its employees and likewise the Provident Fund Authority was not correct in taking into account the daily allowance, medical allowance as part and parcel of salary of its employees. The learned Advocate further submits that on going through the order passed on the review application, it would appear that the authority concerned did not take into account the points raised by the writ petitioner while pressing the review application and there has been failure of natural justice.
5. Mr. Prasad representing the Provident Fund Authority, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to Section 2(f) of the Act and contends that loading and unloading was part and parcel of the business transaction of the writ petitioner and on that ground the Authority concerned was justified in taking into account the amount spent for such charges as a component for calculating the PF amount due to the Provident Fund Authority. Mr. Prasad submits that the writ petitioner did not urge the points, as it is now raising before this Court and the points taken in connection with the review petition were all afterthought.
6. After hearing the learned Advocate of both the sides and after considering the definition of employee as contained the Act and also on close examination of the order recorded by the Authority concerned while disposing of the review petition, I am of the view that the Authority concerned must give a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to press his points raised in connection with the review application and with this observation, I am inclined to allow this writ petition by keeping the final order passed under Section 7A of the said Act suspended for the present by directing the Authority concerned to examine afresh the points taken by the writ petitioner through its review application and the Authority concerned shall take necessary action only after fresh disposal of the review application and direct the petitioner accordingly in the matter of deduction of the amount due to it.
7. I further direct the Authority concerned to give the fresh hearing within two months from the date of communication of this order and the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce all connected records and to press his submission before the Authority concerned and the Authority concerned thereafter by reasoned order shall discuss all the points taken by the petitioner and record the final order on the review application.
8. I also make it clear that the amount already deducted from the account of the writ petitioner shall be finally adjusted after the Authority concerned shall take final decision regarding the amount already deducted.
9. The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to cost.
10. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertaking.