Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Before we examine the contentions placed before us, we first note as to the broad reasons assigned by learned Single Bench to hold that the writ petitions at the instance of the appellant (as described) is not maintainable. The learned Single Bench firstly faults the description of the writ petitioners as Central Board or Central Board of Trustees Employees' Provident Fund Organization, the Court held that there is nothing of the sort of Employees' Provident Fund Organization in the whole scheme of the Act, and this must be the creation of the Provident Fund authorities describing themselves an organization and therefore, the writ petition filed by such non-existing organization or in the name of a fictitious body should fail. Secondly, the Learned Writ Court holds that the writ petitions arise out of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal in appeals filed by the employers and the Central Board of Trustees was not a party to appeal petitions and treating the appellant as a third party, the writ petition at the instance of the appellant is not maintainable. The third aspect which the learned Writ Court has considered, is the scheme of the Act. After MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 referring to Section 5 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act for brevity) it is observed that the fund shall be administered by the Central Board constituted under Section 5 A of the Act, the expression "fund" has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Act to mean the Provident Fund established under a scheme. The powers and functions of the Central Board have been provided under Section 5A (3) to (9) of the Act and all these sub-sections concern the administrative issues and maintenance of accounts of the Central Board of its income and expenditure, method of auditing, its obligation to submit to the Central Government annual report of its work and activities etc. It is stated that Section 5AA (1) of the Act deals with the executive committee to assist the Central Board in the performance of its functions. The learned Writ Court looks into the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (the Scheme) and in particular Para 11 to 18 of the scheme and notes that those are of pertaining to amendment and procedure for holding meetings of the Central Board of Trustees or its executive committee or regional committee. The Court also notes Para 19, 22 and 24 of the scheme, and then proceeds to hold that Section 5 A of the Act and Chapter III of the scheme only confers power upon the Central Board of Trustees for the administration of the fund vested in it and unless and until the fund is vested, the Central Board of Trustees cannot assume jurisdiction. The learned Writ Court further proceeds to hold that if administration of fund is the only sphere where the Central Board can exercise its jurisdiction it follows as a natural corollary that it cannot exercise any powers which does not fall within its jurisdiction. In other MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 words, even if there is delegation of power of the Central Board it being beyond its statutory limits the same must be deemed to be an improper delegation or excessive authorization. Further, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (FPFC) or the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) exercise power for recovery of provident fund dues as provided under the Act and if such power is not conferred on the Central Board they cannot file a writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal as it is clearly outside the scope of its function i.e merely administration of a fund. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that in the year, 1989 there has been a delegation of powers by the Central Board in favour of the RPFC/ APFC to sue or be sued in its name and in this regard, they relied on Section 5C of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that Section 5C of the Act declares that Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A or 5B of the Act to be a body corporate under name specified in the notification constituting it and it has perpetual succession and a common seal and shall be sued or be sued and consequently writ petitioners were maintainable. This contention was negative by the learned writ court by holding that it overlooks that Section 5C is not concerned with the Central Board of Trustees alone. Further if the power to sue is sought to be interpreted in respect of any matter which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Board of Trustees such power plainly cannot be exercised by encroaching upon the jurisdiction of some other authority under the Act. Further, the statute confers no power to recover contribution or levy and collect damages with the Central Board of Trustees. It was observed that if the Central MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 Board of Trustees is competent to sue an establishment why was it not mentioned in the original order passed by the APFC or why was not an order passed by the Central Board of Trustees and why the RPFC alone defended the appeal and why the Central Board was not made a party at the appeal stage and therefore, negatived the contentions of the appellant. Further it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Central Board consists of 43 members and it was contemplated by the legislature to evolve a procedure by which action can be taken on behalf of the Central Board by its delegatee namely, RPFC/ APFC. Therefore, in a case if the Tribunal had committed error in passing an order without following the procedure of law, the Central Board of Trustees cannot be without any remedy. This argument was not accepted by the learned Writ Court, by referring to Paragraph 24 A of the scheme and observing that the Central Board's power to delegate is restricted to sanctioning expenditure of any item whether in the nature of capital or revenue expenditure etc and these are the only sphere where the Central Board may delegate its authority to the Chairman. The appellant placed reliance on a resolution passed in the 109th of the meetings of the Central Board on April 4, 1999, whereby the Central Board approved proposals regarding delegation of power to the law officers, RPFCs/ APFCs to institute, file, contest, execute and defend all legal proceedings by or against the Central Board of Trustees as the ultimate answer to the issue raised in the petitions. The learned Writ Court rejected such argument by holding that such delegation was impermissible in view of paragraph 24 A of the scheme. It was argued on behalf of the appellant MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 that if the Central Board does not have power to take legal proceedings against any establishment for recovery of the due it would amount to frustrating the very object as mentioned in Section 5B(3) of the Act. As in the said provision, the expression used is "as it may consider necessary for the efficient administration of the scheme, pension scheme and insurance scheme". The learned Writ Court rejected the argument by holding that Section 5B has nothing to do with legal proceedings to be taken by the Central Board as it deals only with the appointment of the officers and it mentions only for efficient administration of the scheme and not for legal proceedings. The learned Writ Court then proceeds to consider the definition of "fund" as mentioned under Section 2(h) of the Act states that "fund" means the provident fund established under a scheme and the use of the definite article "the" before the words "provident fund" and the indefinite article "a" before the word "scheme" has to be understood with interpretative subtleties coupled with fact that the word "establish" has been used in its part particle form. Therefore, the learned Writ Court holds the word "fund" if etymologically analyzed and understood means the provident fund which has been established under a scheme and the fund must be a specific one expressed through the word "the" and it cannot be something non-specific which is yet to come to the hand of the authorities. Therefore, the Court proceeds to hold if the moneys have not yet come to the hands of the provident fund authorities are also included within the definition of "fund" one wonders how the Central Board shall administer the same. Therefore, unless the "fund" is vested in the Central Board it does MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 not derive any right to administer the same. The money liable to be recovered from the employers has been deliberately kept outside the definition of the word "fund" by the legislature. Further, with regard to the power of the Central Board under Section 14B of the Act which deals with the power to reduce or to waive the damages under circumstances stated therein, it was held, that being a policy decision has to be taken by the highest authorities. The appellants finally contended that writ petitions were filed in the name of the RPFC and the same had to be discontinued on account of an order passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court in WP No. 18275(W) of 2013 dated June 5, 2014, wherein the Court held that the RPFC in its individual capacity cannot prefer a writ petition challenging an order passed by the learned Tribunal and the competent authority to file a petition has been recognized under Section 5C of the Act which is the Central Board of Trustees. The learned Writ Court in the impugned order held that the order passed in WP No. 18275 (W) of 2013 is virtually a non-speaking order, it has not decided any ratio or laid down any point of law so as to operate as a precedent and therefore, not binding on the Court. Thus, the learned Writ Court concluded that the action taken in the name of the Central Board of Trustees is not supportable from any standpoint and the of delegation of power made by the Central Board in favour of the certain classes of officials is bad and incompetent both for want of specific authority and being in excess of powers possessed by the Central Board.

26. Section 5 deals with Employees' Provident Fund Schemes. There are two very significant limbs in Sub-section 1 of Section 5. The first of which is that the Central Government has to frame a scheme called the Employees' Provident MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 Fund Scheme. This is for the establishment of Provident Funds under the Act for employees or for any class of employees and it shall also specify the establishments or class of establishments to which the said scheme shall apply. The second limb casts a duty upon the Central Government to establish a fund as soon as may be after framing the scheme. The fund so established shall vest in and be administered by the Central Board constituted under Section 5A in terms of Section 5 (1A) of the Act. Thus, Section 5(1) of the Act clearly stipulates that the Central Government shall first frame a scheme and soon after framing a scheme establish the fund. Therefore, for all purposes the scheme as framed by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 5(1) assumes supremacy in the chain of events. It is only after the scheme is framed under Section 5(1) of the Act by the Central Government a fund has to be established. This fund shall vest in and be administered by the Central Board constituted under Section 5A of the Act. While considering the said provision, we should take note of Section 5E of the Act which deals with the power of delegation. The said provision states that the Central Board may delegate to the Executive Committee or to the Chairman of the Board or to any of its officers and a State Board may delegate to its' Chairman or to any of his officers, subject to such conditions and limitations, such of its powers and functions under the Act as it may deem necessary for the efficient administration of the scheme, the pension scheme and the insurance scheme. Thus, the language in Section 5E of the Act is clear and manifest that the Central Board or the State Board may delegate its powers to the Executive MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 Committee or to the Chairman of the Board or to any officers such of its powers and functions under the Act for the efficient administration of the scheme. At this juncture, we need to take note of the definition of "recovery officer" as defined under Section 2 (kb) of the Act. In terms of the said provision, recovery officer means any officer of the Central Government, State Government or the Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A to exercise the powers of a recovery officer under the Act. Therefore, to state that the officers who are empowered to commence enquiry, determine and recover the dues to be in a water tight compartment to the exclusion of the Central Board is impermissible. This is so because the "recovery officer" can be an officer of the Central Government or an officer of the State Government or the Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A of the Act. Therefore, the supremacy of the Central Board stands preserved. The principle object of the Act is to ensure efficient administration of the scheme and not efficient administration of the fund. Therefore, if the Central Board can be a "recovery officer" and if it exercises its power of delegation under Section 5E of the Act to any other officer to exercise the powers and functions under the Act for the efficient administration of the scheme, it is deemed that the power and functions exercisable and exercised by those officers as a delegate are the powers and duties exercised or exercisable by the Central Board. Once we steer clear of this position, the artificial barrier sought to be created by the employers before us stands demolished. As mentioned earlier, in the hierarchy, it is a "scheme" which is first notified and it is thereafter the "fund" established. Thus, if the MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 power has been granted to the Central Board to efficiently administer the scheme, it goes without saying that in the process of efficiently administering the scheme, the fund has to be appropriately and efficiently handled in the manner as provided for under the Act. Bearing in mind, this interpretation, if we examine the provisions of Section 5A, the position becomes clearer. Sub- Section 3 of Section 5A states that the Central Board subject to the provisions of 6A and 6C administer the fund vested in it and in such manner as may be specified in the scheme. The argument that the "fund" does not vest with the Central Board during the process of enquiry, determination and recovery of dues is an argument which is stated to be rejected. When the Central Board can exercise its power as a "recovery officer", it goes without saying that if the Central Board is empowered to delegate such powers in terms of Section 5E of the Act and the delegated officer commences the enquiry determines the dues and recovers, the delegatee it undoubtedly exercising the powers of a "recovery officer" which will include a Central Board. Therefore, the powers are inextricable linked and the Central Board cannot be divested of its jurisdiction to state that the Central Board can do nothing until the officer commences the enquiry determines the dues and recovers the same to be deposited to the fund. If such interpretation is to be given then purpose of the Act would stand defeated. Thus, when the Central Board has enough and sufficient powers to efficiently administer the scheme, it goes without saying that in the process of administering the scheme efficiently, it would encompass all powers to deploy the fund for efficient and proper administration of the scheme. Thus, in the MAT NO. 1141 OF 2017 & MAT NO. 350 OF 2018 absence of the scheme the fund loses its significance as it is the scheme which needs to be administered and for the purpose of administering the scheme the fund becomes relevant. Precisely for reason no time line has been fixed/stipulated between the notification of a scheme and establishment of a fund as Section 5(1) of the Act uses the expression "as soon as may be" after framing the scheme. The fund is established not only in accordance with the provisions of the Act but also in accordance with the provisions of the schemes. Therefore, on and after the fund being established, it shall vest with the Board simultaneously and co-terminus with the date of establishment of the fund qua the notification of the scheme. Thus, the interpretation made on behalf of the employers if to be accepted, it will bring in an artificial distinction which is not provided for under the Act.