Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(45) This argument seems to assume wrongly that these are two alternative courses open to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, namely (1) either to proceed against a defaulter under Section 14B of the Act or (2) to prosecute him under Section 14(2A). The foundation of the argument is non-existent. Proceedings under Sections 14B and 14(2A) are not in the alternative. They are supplemental. This is not a case where the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has a discretion without any guidelines to resort either to proceed under Section 14B of the Act or to sanction prosecution on under Section 14AC. In fact, both the proceedings are available to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. This is not a case like Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. and another v. State of Punjab and another; Air 1968 Sc 1581(28), where a person Hi unauthorised occupation of public premises could be proceeded against either in a civil court or before the Estate Officer, and as one was more drastic than the other, and there were no guiding principles as to which one to select, the provision was held to be unconstitutional. It was to remove this infirmity that an amendment was brought in barring the jurisdiction of the civil court and providing that there will be only one procedure for ejectment of persons; in unauthorised occupation of public premises. This amendment was upheld in Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer, Delhi, . Here there is no question of pick or choose. A defaulter is liable both under Section 14B and 14(2A) of the Act. There is no question of discrimination because every employer making default is liable to be proceeded against under both the provisions i.e. under Section 14(2A) and 14B of the Act. When, therefore, any employer who makes default is liable to be similarly proceeded under both the provisions the question of any arbitrariness or discrimination does not arise. Faced with this situation, Mr. Malik then urged that as Section 14AC lays down that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable Under the Act except........with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner there may be arbitrariness in not granting sanction against one employer while granting the same in case of other because of the fact that no guidelines are laid down under which circumstances sanction will be granted. We find the argument unacceptable. As to and under what circumstances sanction will be granted has necessarily to be determined on the facts of each case. Power having been given to senior officers they are expected to apply their mind and then take a decision whether to grant the sanction or not for prosecution of an employer in each case. It may be that if there is an in constitutional default of a minor nature sanction may not be given while in case of an employer who is habitual defaulter or has no justification whatsoever for having defaulted a number of times sanction may be given. No hard and fast rule cam evidently be laid down fixing rigid limits for giving or refusing sanction. It will depend upon the facts' of each case. All that can be said is that as this power is being given to serve a public purpose the authority concerned has to act impartially, without any bias and on the basis of the relevant material placed before it. Of course if in any particular case a party is of the view that sanction has not been given legally or that there are no facts on the basis of which any authority could have given the necessary sanction it may be open to the person concerned to challenge the giving of sanction in that particular case. But the fact that the sanction given in a particular case may be challenged does not mean that the power to give sanction given in Section 14AC is by itself discriminatory. By the very nature of power, such a discretion has to be left to the authorities concerned. Such a power is to be found under various provisions. Thus Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the State Government to give sanction for prosecution.........no specific guidelines or any principles are laid down therein. It has never been held that such a power is an uncanalised power or is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Of course if sanction is' given On the basis of facts on which no reasonable person could have come to a conclusion that this was a case in which sanction should have been given or some other patent illegality is found the court may. if it so finds fit. interfere with such an order. This is because it is by now well settled that 'it is an un-written rule of law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote'. (Vide Shalini Soni V. Union of India ) . But on that ground the statutory provisions empowering the authority to give sanction for prosecution has never been held to be illegal. Rather the contrary. Thus the argument that the power to give sanction vests an absolve and arbitrary power under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure code as it did not lay down or indicate any guiding principle to control the exercise of discretion was raised in Mata Jog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari : but was rejected with the observations that 'it has to be borne in mind that a discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and that abuse of power is not to be easily assumed where the discretion is vested in the Government and not in the minor official'.