CWP No. 18947 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18947 of 2006 Date of Decision: 19.12.2008 Dharam Singh ..Petitioner versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Ms. Rajive Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.3 ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) CM No. 24835 of 2008 Heard. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions and CM disposed of. CWP No. 18947 of 2006 [2] CM No. 24836 of 2008 Heard. Status report filed by respondent No.1 is taken on record and CM disposed of. CWP No. 18947 of 2006 This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to ensure complete payment to the workers in terms of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the schemes framed thereunder. When this petition came up before us on 11.09.2008, our attention was drawn to the status report filed on behalf of the respondents, from which, it appeared that although a squad of Enforcement Officers was constituted as early as on 02.11.2006 to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act aforementioned, yet the squad had not acted in the matter or visited the contractor till as late as 30.04.2007. No explanation was forthcoming from the respondents for this inaction on the part of the members of the squad. Having noticed the default, the competent authority was advised to take appropriate action against the defaulting members of the squad for their failure to take suitable action in the matter. This Court also noticed that an enquiry had been initiated under Section 7-A of the Act aforementioned by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in which notices were issued for the appearance of the contractor on three dates of hearing. The Contractor had successfully evaded the service of the said notice and thereby prevented determination of dues payable to the labourer. Bailable warrant issued against the contractor also appeared to be ineffective. Taking note of all these circumstances and having regard to the provisions of Section 7-A of the Act, this Court was of CWP No. 18947 of 2006 [3] the view that the enquiry initiated by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda could be taken over by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda, to complete the same within a period of three months from the date of the said order. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda was also directed to submit a report about the proceedings and other steps taken in accordance with the scheme. In compliance with the above direction, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,Bhatinda, has filed a status report. From a reading of the said report, it appears that a sum of Rs. 4,31,570/- has been determined as payable by M/s Raj Kumar Contractor under the Act aforementioned who has been given 15 days time to make the payment in terms of an order dated 30.09.2008. The report further states that since Raj Kumar contractor failed to comply with the order under Section 7-A of the Act, nine complaints under Section 14 of the Act have been filed by the authorities under the Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala. That apart M/s Pungrain, Sangrur who happens to be the Principal Employer has also been served with notices under Section 8-F of the Act directing it to recover the balance amount from Raj Kumar, contractor. Learned counsel appearing for Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda further submits that departmental action has also been initiated against the members of the squad of Enforcement Officers, namely, Krishan Kumar and G.K.Bhatia who have submitted their explanation and clarified that they had visited the residence of the contractor but the letter for production of record could not be served upon him due to his non-availability at his residence. CWP No. 18947 of 2006 [4] Learned counsel appearing for M/s Pungrain and Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. submit that they have received notices from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner asking them to recover and deposit the amount outstanding against Raj Kumar contractor. Notices also instruct the bank to freeze the account of the said two establishments till payment of Rs. 2,05,080/- in the case of M/s Pungrain and Rs. 1,17,235/- in the case of Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. is made. According to learned counsel appearing for Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda, the balance amount is recoverable from Food Corporation of India, against whom also the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda has taken action. It is noteworthy that according to the instructions of the counsel appearing for Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda, M/s Pungrain has already deposited a sum of Rs. One lac on 18.12.2008. In the totality of the above circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to continue these proceedings on our board which can in our opinion be disposed of with a direction that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda shall pursue the proceedings initiated by him against all concerned strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder so that the recovery of the outstanding amount is effected and the amount disbursed to the rightful claimants. Proceedings be also initiated against the members of the enforcement squad for their failure to effect recovery and take appropriate action at the appropriate time. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. This order shall not, CWP No. 18947 of 2006 [5] prevent M/s Pungrain and M/s Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited from seeking appropriate redress should there be any grievance against the action taken against them by the competent authority. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 19.12.2008 'ravinder'