Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 same shall be referred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who shall decided the same.
Provided that both the employer and the employee shall be heard before passing any order in the matter.
Thus, it is clear that the dispensation made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under para 26-B cannot be divorced in the sense sought to be argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 7A(1)(a) of the Act provides that dispute regarding applicability of the Act to an establishment would be decided by the officer/s named therein and the amount due from the employer under any provision of this Act, the Scheme, Pension Scheme or Insurance Scheme would be determined by the said officer, who is vested with the power to conduct such an inquiry as deemed necessary. Para 26B of the EPF Scheme provides for resolution of disputes regarding entitlement of an employee, to become or continue as a member or as regards the date from which he is so entitled or required, by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that proceedings under Section 26B of the Scheme came into being during the course of inquiry under Section 7A of the Act. The Assistant Provident Fund

9 of 13 Commissioner vide order dated 20.05.2011 had held some of the complainant employees to be entitled to the benefit under the Act from the various dates as mentioned therein. Learned EPFAT, remanded the matter before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, on the ground that question of entitlement etc. has to be decided by the said officer as per para 26B of the EPF Scheme and not Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Consequently, impugned order dated 18.02.2019 was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II. Admittedly, an appeal was duly filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal.

A Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -II 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 585, after going through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Nasiruddi Beedi Merchant Ltd. V. Central Provident Fund Commissioner [2001 (1) SCT 1130 :

(2001) 2 SCC 612]; Sarva Shramik Singh v. Indian Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd. [2003 (4) SCT 839 : (2003) 10 SCC 455]; Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. V. Union of India [2004 (2) SCT 243 : (2004) 11 SCC 526] and The Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. V. B. Somayajulu (AIR 1964 SC 279), has observed that reading of para 26B of the Scheme or any other provisions of the Act by no stretch of imagination can be understood in a manner to say that intention of makers of the statue was to drive the parties to different forums for determination of the relationship and then come back to the forum constituted under this enactment. In the case of Express Publication (supra), question involved was regarding relationship of an employer and employee between the parties.