Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: para 26b in Mansi Hospital & Maternity Hospital ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 7 February, 2012Matching Fragments
3. Second contention of Mr. Chawla is predicated on para 26B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme which reads as under:
"26-B. Resolution of doubts.
If any question arises whether an employee is entitled or required to become or continue as a member, or as regards the date from which he is so entitled or required to become a member, the decision of the Regional Commissioner shall be final:
Provided that no decision shall be given unless both the employer and the employee have been heard."
4. On the basis of the aforesaid provision, it is contended that it was incumbent on the part of the RPFC to hear the employee, namely, Mr.Jahoor Khan as well. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Regional Director, ESIC, (2009) 9 SCC
485.
5. We are afraid the provisions of Para 26B are not applicable to the facts of the present case. This para would apply in a situation where an establishment is covered by the provisions of the PF Act but the dispute has arisen as to whether a particular employee is covered by the Provident Fund scheme or not. In such a situation, the dispute would essentially be between the employer and the employee, where the employer contends that the concerned person is not his employee or not covered by the PF Act but the employee on the other hand claims that he is so covered. In such a case, when the dispute arises between the employer and the employee, obviously both the employer and the employee have to be heard and that is what is provided in the aforesaid paragraph. In the present case, on the contrary, the dispute is altogether different, namely, whether the appellant is an establishment which is covered under the PF Act or not. Therefore, reliance on para 26B is totally misconceived.