Jharkhand High Court
R.P.Agarwal vs Regional Provedent Fund Commis on 16 July, 2012
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C). No. 2493 of 2006
R.P.Agarwal ......... Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & ors. ... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Srivastava
For the Respondents : Mr. P.P.N.Roy
-----------
05 /16.07.2012Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 29.10.2004 as well as 27.2.2006 whereby the establishment of the petitioner has been assessed to pay Rs. 9680/- together with interest of Rs. 2,698/- for the period from February, 2000 to December, 2003 and his application for re-consideration of the aforesaid payment has also been refused despite of the submission of the petitioner that his establishment was closed since 1.7.2001, as per the closure report of the Factory Inspector, annexued as Annexue-2 as also the report of the Enforcement Officer of the respondent- E.P.F. Organization dated 24.9.2005 contained at Annexure-3, but those reports were not taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 27.2.2006 annexed as Annexure-5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents ought to have corrected the error apparent on the face of the record after his application was made as contained in Annexure-4 or could have exercised their suo-moto power under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by this court in a similar circumstance in the case of M/s Magadh Engineering Works, Bokaro Vrs. Provident Fund Commissioner, E.P.F.O, Ranchi & others reported in 2010(1) J.C.R. 332(Jhr).
However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the orders passed by the authorities are appealable under Section 7-I of the aforesaid Act, but the petitioner has straightaway moved this court.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records including the impugned orders, it appears that there is error apparent on the face of the record as the closure report of the Factory Inspector as also the report of the Enforcement Officer would reveal that the factory was closed after July 2001 whereas the assessment has been made for the period from February, 2000 to December, 2003 together with interest.
In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent no.2,The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ranchi for considering the petitioner's case afresh after giving opportunity to the parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of 16 weeks, thereafter.
This application is accordingly, disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty