@ ’ @ P E T I T I O N E R : B E F O R E T H E H O N ’ B L E H I G H C O U R T O F J U D I C A T U R E B I L A S P U R W . P . N 0 . . ‘ . ‘ . . ‘ ; . . ‘ . [ l é ’ é o l 2 0 0 4 M / s R A I P I R L A M P S ( P ) L T D , S H E D N o . r / 2 6 & 2 9 , U R L A I N D U S T R I A L A R E A , R A I P U R T H R O U G H D I R E C T O R R A J E S H T U L S Y A N S / O S H R I B . L . T U L S Y A N , A G E D A B O U T 3 6 Y E A R S , R / C - 2 7 ’ 6 , S H A I L E N D R A N A G A R , R A I P U R ( C . G . ) V E R S U S . T H E E M P L O Y E E S ’ P R O V I D E N T F U N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N , M I N I S T R Y O F L A B O U R , G O V T . O F I N D I A ) T H R O U G H T H E R E G I O N A L P R O V I D E N T F U N D C O M M I S S I O N E R , R E G I O N A L O F F I C E , R A I P U R ( C . G . ) T H E R E G I O N A L P R O V I D E N T F U N D C O M M I S S I O N E R 8 5 Q U A S I J U D I C I A L A U T H O R I T Y U N D E R S E C T I O N 7 — A O F E M P L O Y E E S P R O V I D E N T F U N D S 8 5 M I S C E L L A N E O U S P R O V I S I O N S A C T 1 9 5 2 , S H R I B I B H I S H A N P A D H A N , R E G I O N A L . O F F I C E , R A I P U R [ c . G . ] 3 B A N K O F M A H A R A S H T R A / / " T H R 0 U G H M A N A G E R , B A N K O F M A H A R A S H T R A , B A R O N B A Z A R , R A I P U R ( C . G . ) W R I T P E T I T I O N U N D E R A R T I C L E 2 2 6 I 2 2 7 O F T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N O F I N D I A F O R I S S U A N C E O F A N A P P R O P R I A T E W R I T / O R D E R O R D I R E C T I O N A S D E E M E D F I T 1 . . P A R T I C U L A R S O F T H E P E T I T I O N E R : A s s h o w n i n c a u s e t i t l e P A R T I C U L A R S O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T S : — A s S h o w n i n c a u s e t i t l e . 2 . ^••^^•^•tay^'s,^^-^:^, '":;<:'' ,-x-/1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATT1SGARH. Writ Petition No.4066 /2004 M/s Priya Paper Works Versus- The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation & another Writ Petition NoAW8tt004 M/s. Modern Enaineers -Versus- The Emptoyees Provident Fund Organization and Another Writ Petition No.4451/2004 M/s. Ankit Steels (Steel Re-rolling Mill) -Versus- The Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others Writ Petition No.4473^2004 M/s. Sangam Forgings (P) Ltd. -Versus- The Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others Writ Petition No.4478/2004 M/s. Vineet Singh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. -Versus- The Employees Provident Fund Organizatlon and Another Writ Petition No.4630 / 2004 M/s. Raipur Lamps (P) Ltd. -Versus- The Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others AfiBearance: Petitioners by Ms. Sunita Jain and Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Advocates. Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ORDER (02-02-2005) Since all the writ petitions referred to above have been filed for almost a similar relief and are based on similar grbunds of identical nature, they are being disposed of by this common order. i ii..i K:...-^ rf- /' 'M.;^-^ - •2-- 2). In fact, in all these identical petitions, a common question is involved as to whether the petitioners can be afforded an opportunity to file a representation before the concerned authority i.e.Regional Provident Fund Commissloner & Quasi Judicial Authority Under Section 7-A of the Employees Provldent Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, Regional Office Raipur, after a final decision under Section 7-A of the said Act. 3). The case of the petitioners is that prooeedings under Section 7-A of The Employees" Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Acf') were drawn against ihem for determination of money due from them (Empioyers). In the said proceedings, the aforesaid authority passed separate orders which are impugned in each of the petitlon. The petitioners have challenged the legality, vatidity and propriety of the said orclers by filing these writ petitions under Artiele 226 1227 of the Constitution of India. The iegality of the orders has been challenged by the petitioners saying that the authority has not adopted proper procedure and the grounds for assessment and also for determination of the outstanding amount are not proper. 4). Learned counsel for the petltloners argues that In another petition bearing W.P. No. 2331/2004, this Court has passed an order dated 20/09/2004 by which a direction was issued to the petitioner of the said case that he would file a detailed reprssantation raising grievances before respondent No.2 of the said petition (authority under Section 7 -A of the Act)/ competent authority along with a copy of the petition and order within ten days and on such representation being flled, the competent authority shall decide the same by a reasoned 1 ^; l.^rl -•5- order on its own merits in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. They further submit that similar directions be issued in each of the writ petltlon and accordingly the petitioners may be permitted to file representations before the competent authority and the competent authority may be directed to decide the same in terms of the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 5). A copy of the order passed in W.P. No. 2331/2004 has also been placed on record. 6). Now the question arises before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the competent authority under Section 7 -A of the Act should be quashed by this Court and/or a direction for filing the representation as given in W.P. No. 2331/2004 can be issued straightway to the petitioners and the petitions should be disposed of on the said terms. 7). I have heard learned counsel for the petitloner and also perused the recordsofthe writ petitions. 8). The scheme of the Act is required to be analyzed here in these cases. Admittedly, the competent authority has got jurisdiction to determine the money due from the employers and proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act can be initiated by the competent authority. The method of determination has also been provlded in the atoresaid section. Section 7-B of the Act deals with review of orders passed under Section 7-A. Thereafter, the provision of Section 7-C of the Act deals with determination of escaped amount and Section 7-D of the Act deals with constitution of the Employees' Provi.dent Funds Appeltate Tribunal and ultimately Section 7- I of the Act gives a clear r^ /^3~ iCT'e, -4- provision for filing of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Section 7-1 ofthe Act is quoted as under: 7-1. Appeals to Tribunal - (1) Any pereon aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 1, or Section 3, or sub-section (1) of Section 7-A, or Section 7-B (except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof), or Sectioh 7-C, or Section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shalt be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed. Section 7-0 of the Act deals with deposit of the amount due on flling appeal. It is provided that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless he has deposited with it 75% of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7- A of the Act. The powers have also been gh/en to the Tribunal regarding reducing or waiving of the amount to be deposited under this section. 9). After examining the scheme of the Act which provides a remedy of review as well as appeal, there can hardly be any doubt to say that the Impugned orders of the writ petltions passed under Section 7-A of the Act are appealable orders and the appeals to the Tribunal may be filed under Section 7-1 of the Act. i!: l: i kl i i^ - ,M> s- 10). Now coming to the question of giving similar retief as has been given in W.P. No. 2331/2004, l am of the opinion that the same cannot be granted to the petitioners. When the petitioners are having a deflnite remedy of appeai under the scheme of the Act, they cannot be attowed to bypass the said remedy and to file the representations before the authority concerned for reconsideration of the orders passed by it. It is to be kept in mind that there is also a provision of review which 1 have reforred to above and if the petitioners are aliowed to file representations, it shall certainty frustrate the aforesaid provisions and the remedy available under the Act. The order passed in W.P. No. 2331/2004 is very ciear and this Court has passed the said order for filing a representation in peculiar clrcumstances. The very flrst paragraph of the order states as under; " It is stated that the petitioner is a contractor who is covered under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Employees Provident Fund Account has been seized and the labourers/employees are not being paid their dues, as such they are in great difficulty and they are at the verge ofstarvation." it is clear from the said paragraph that the aforesaid order was passed in a circumstance in which the account of the concerned petitioner was reported to have been seized, due to which the labourers/empioyees were not paid their dues and as such they were In great dlfflculty and they were at the verge of stervation. tt is for this reason aione this Court on th< wayer of -the counse! for the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, iasued a direciion for filing of the representation and decision by the competent authority. There is no direction for t-^^' •&- consideration on the point of quashment of the order impugned (in the said petition) passed under Section 7-A of the Act. The order is only for consideration about the seizure of the account by the concerned authonty » and not for any other purpose. 11). The contention of the learned counsel for the petltioners that similar direction may be tssued in all the cases Is misconce'ved. In Tact, the order passed in W.P. No. 2331/2004 is not a precedent on the point that after passing of an order by the authority under Section 7-A of the Act, there may be a direction for reconsidering the same on a representation being made by the concerned person or the establishment against whom the order is passed. In fact, the aforesaid order even does not utter a single word regarding the remedy against the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act. The order was passed onty after a prayer about the seizure of the account was made. Thls order is applicable for the said case only, which was passed in the peculiar circumstances of the said case alone. Consequently, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12). At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as par order passsd under Section 7-A of the Acl, now tha concemed authorities are trying to take coercive steps under Section 8-F of the Act, which they have teken in some cases like W.P. Nos. 4451/2004, 4473/2004 and 4630/2004. They pray that they may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate appeal under Section 7-1 of the Act. They also pray that some protective order may be passed so that the petitioners may not be subjected to coercive actions before approaching the Appellate Tribunal. In the opinion of this Court, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be reasonable. VR'^ Accordingly, the prayar is altowed. The petitioners are free to file appeal before the Tribunal in accordance w-ith law. However, it is directed that the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners regarding recovery of the outstanding amount for a period of 60 days from today. The petitioners may file appeals before the Tribunal during the aforesaid period. The order of interim relief shall loose its efficacy automatically after the iapse of aforesaid period of 60 days from today. (11). With the aforesaid observations, al! the petitions stand disposed offinally. 12). Consequently, all the M.W.Ps. and l-As- pending in each of the writ petition stand disposed of. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge pqI""^Fn"3^rTTT'