CW 991/95 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.991/95 Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 11/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. A.K. Pareek, for petitioner Mr. Deepak Goyal, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner-Bank assailing order Ann.8 dt.12th September, 1993 passed by the respondents in exercise of power u/s.14-B of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. According to which, the damages have been imposed upon establishment namely; M/s. Rajasthan Co-operative Credit Institution Cadre Authority, Sawaimadhopur. Counsel for petitioner submits that employees who are working as Manager/Loan Supervisor were under the control of Rajasthan Co-operative Credit Institution Cadre Authority and their subscription towards provident fund was to be deposited by their employer i.e. the cadre authority. Counsel further submits that subscription towards PF was deposited with the CW 991/95 [2] respondents vide order Ann.6 dt.22nd August, 1992, but the petitioner could not be considered to be employer and in such circumstances, the damages imposed by the respondents against the cadre authority in no manner can be recovered from the present petitioner. Counsel further submits that they preferred review petition but without assigning any reason that too was dismissed on 23rd February, 1994. In the reply, it has been averred that respondent has taken note of establishment upon whom damages have been inflicted and since Rajasthan Co-operative Credit Institution Cadre Authority no longer exists and the petitioner is holding affairs of the employees of erstwhile cadre authority, certainly can be held responsible to pay damages. From bare perusal of order impugned Ann.8, it clearly shows that damages were inflicted upon the erstwhile employer i.e. Rajasthan Co- operative Credit Institution Cadre Authority and the petitioner was not the party to the order impugned. Apart from it, review petition was also dismissed vide order Ann.10 dt.23rd February, 1994 CW 991/95 [3] without assigning any reason. There is no finding recorded by the authority holding that the petitioner being employer under the provisions of the Act, 1952. In absence whereof, damages could not have been recovered from the present petitioner under the garb of Ann.8. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed and the order Ann.8 dt.17/9/93 and order on review petition Ann.10 dt.23/2/94 are hereby quashed and set aside. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA991CW95 11-2.doc