Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commr-Ii on 12 August, 2014
|= IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7683 OF 2014
(arising out of SLP(C)No.29914 of 2013)
EXPRESS PUBLICATION (MADURAI) LTD. APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR-II & ANR. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7684 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.25986 of 2013)
O R D E R
C.A. NO.7683 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)No.29914/2013 :
Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Express Publication (Madurai) Limited, against the judgment dat ed 14 th March, 2013, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 432/2013. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of High Court affirmed the order 21st January, 2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of Exhibit P.7 (Order dated 3 rd August, 2012 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II
- Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Thiruvananthapu ram).Signature Not Verified
The Division Bench held that the said order, i.e., Exhibit P.7, be Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2014.08.21 14:48:43 IST treated Reason: to be a decision as per para 26B of the Emp loyees’ 1 Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme") and remitted the matter to the Competent Authority to proceed with the enquiry contemplated under Sub-section (3) of section 7A of the Employees" Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to "the Provid ent Funds Act").
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appell ant submitted that the non-members, working journalists, journalists and non-journalists, who wanted to be the Member of the Scheme, made an application and a determination was made in their favour under para 26B of the Provident Fund Scheme, though they were not employees of the appellant-newspaper. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, para 26B of the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 cannot be invoked by 1st respondent, the status of 47 persons cannot b e adjudicated under the Provident Fund Act, 1952, which can be adjudicated at best by a Civil Court.
Per contra, according to learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the journalists, working journalists and non-journalists who are covered under "Working Journalists and Other Newspa per Employees Act, 1955", are also covered under the Provident Fund Act. In terms of the said Act, they are entitled to be a Member of the Scheme. However, it is accepted that said issue was neither raised nor determined either by learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court.
In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that while 2 remitting the matter to the Competent Authority under sub-section (3) of Section 7A of the Provident Funds Act, 1952 it was incumbent on the part of the High Court to ask the Competent Authority to determine the preliminary issue whether 47 journalists, working journalists, non-journalists, etc. are covered under the Provident Fund Act and Scheme. If the issue is answered in affirmative, in that case, the Competent Authority will decide whether such employees are entitled to become members of the Scheme as per para 26B of the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
In view of the observations made above, we set aside the judgment dated 21st January, 2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.19752 of 2012, part of the impugned judgment dated 14th March, 2013 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.432/2013 and Order dated 3rd August, 2012 (Exhibit P.7) and remit back the matter to the Competent Authority to decide the issue(s)aforesaid. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.
In view of the decision aforesaid, no order is passed in I.A. No.2 (Application for impleadment), which stands disposed of. C.A. NO.7684 OF 2014 @ SLP(C)No.25986/2013 :
Leave granted.
In view of the order passed today in C.A.No.7683/2014 @ SLP(C)No. 29914/2013, this appeal also stands disposed of with the similar observations and directions. 3
No separate order is required to be passed in I.A. No.2 (Application for impleadment), which stands disposed of.
..............................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHYA) .............................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) New Delhi;
12th August, 2014.
4
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29914/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/03/2013 in WA No. 432/2013,14/03/2013 in WP No. 19752/2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) EXPRESS PUBLICATION (MADURAI) LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR-II & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 25986/2013 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 12/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Petitioner(s) Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhay a. Jena, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Raut, Adv.
Ms. Bina Gupta ,Adv.
Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Thampan Thomas, Adv.
Mr. N.M. Varghese, Adv.
Ms. Tessy Varghese, Adv.
Mr. K. V. Mohan ,Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr.Adv.
Ms. Sujata Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for impleadment stands disposed of. Leave granted.
The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the Signed Order.
[RAJNI MUKHI] [USHA SHARMA]
SR. P.A. COURT MASTER
(Signed Order is placed on the file) 5