Karnataka High Court
The Regional Provident vs M/S Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd on 20 February, 2014
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
WP 27555/09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27555/2009 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office-Bangalore,
#13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road,
Bangalore-560 025.
Petitioner
(By Sri Rajesh Shettigar, Adv. for
Harikrishna S. Holla, Adv.)
AND:
M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.,
Express Buildings, 1 Queens Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Respondent
(By Sri K.Govindaraj, Adv.)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for
records on the file of the EPF Appellate Tribunal in
Appeal No.ATA.561(6)/2005 and set-aside the order
dated 17.04.2009, Annexure-D, etc.,
This writ petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
2
WP 27555/09
ORDER
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Employees' Provident Fund Organization has presented this petition calling in question the order dated 17.04.2009, Annexure-D of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, modifying the order dated 18.05.2005 of the petitioner imposing damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short) for delayed remittance of provident fund for the period 03/2000 to 01/2003 by restricting the damages upto 15% per annum of the arrears of contribution.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent suffered an order dated 18.05.2005 passed by the petitioner invoking Section 14-B of the Act and determining damages due for the delay in the remittance of the contributions of employer and employee. That order when carried in appeal to the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA 3 WP 27555/09 No.561(6)/05 invoking Section 7-I of the Act, the impugned order was passed modifying the order by reducing the damages to 15%. According to the learned counsel, the appellate tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce the damages to 15%.
3. Learned counsel for respondent, per contra, submits that there is no dispute over determination of the amount due as damages, nevertheless, since the petitioner authority had neither considered the fact of delayed contribution under paragraph 32-A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 which provides for maximum 25% of the contributions by way of damages. Learned counsel further submits that investing of appellate jurisdiction under Section 7-I of the Act in the PF appellate tribunal, deemed to be a judicial proceeding, is empowered to modify or annul the order appealed against. Lastly, it is submitted that the RPF Commissioner is not competent to present the petition calling in question the order of the appellate 4 WP 27555/09 tribunal invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, petition is not maintainable.
4. On the point of maintainability of this petition, the question that necessarily arise for decision making is:
"Whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can be said to be aggrieved of the order of the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in modifying the order dated 18.05.2005 passed by the petitioner determining damages payable under Section 14-B of the Act and reducing the same to 15% of the said damages."
5. The answer to this question is no more res-integra in the light of the order dated 14.02.2014 in W.P.No. 38512-514/2013 in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. M/s Indus Fila Limited and another, whence this Court having examined Section 7-I of the Act observed that since the petitioner exercised quasi judicial authority the appellate tribunal's order cannot be said to have adversely affected the right of the petitioner to deprive him of something to which he has a 5 WP 27555/09 right. It was further observed that the PF Commissioner cannot step into the shoes of a party to the dispute as he is not a party to the lis and any order passed by him is susceptible to an appeal under the statutory provision of Section 7-I of the Act and hence not competent to maintain the petition. This Court further observed that identical was the finding of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 'ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, VISHAKAPATNAM v. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER'1 and that of the High Court of Kerala in 'THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, KERALA v. WEST COAST PETROLEUM AGENCY' DD - 12.01.2012 in WPC 32393/2011 [Y], so also that of the High Court of Calcutta in 'REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER v.
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE 1 2013 [2] LLJ 82 [AP] 6 WP 27555/09 TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI' DD 26.9.2012 in W.P. No.18288[W]/2012.
6. For the very same reasons, this petition is not maintainable at the instance of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm