Case: Sandoz Private Limited & Another Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I & Others

R.Y. Ganoo, J.The aforesaid Writ Petition No.443 of 2012 was filed to challenge the Order dated 30th/31st January, 2012 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, R.O. Mumbai. By prayer clause (b) it was prayed that the relaxation order dated 17.5.2010 be restored. By prayer clause (c) it was prayed that the respondent no.4 be directed to consider the exemption application dated 10.11.1997 filed by the petitioner no.2 as per Section 17 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and take decision before 31.3.2012. The other consequential prayers were also sought. This court rejected the aforesaid writ petition by passing order dated 29.2.2012. This order dated 29.2.2012 is the subject mater of this review petition.2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.M.Naik on behalf of the petitioners. The material on record clearly indicates that the petitioners have reported losses during the financial year 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. On account of the said reporting of losses, the relaxation as per the aforesaid Act granted to the petitioners came to be revoked and the said order of revocation was confirmed by the order dated 30.1.2012 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, R.O., Mumbai.3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naik, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that by the order under review the court has rejected the petition as regards prayer clause (c). According to learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naik, the power to grant exemption from the said Act vested with the appropriate Government i.e. respondent no.4 and therefore the petition could not have been rejected. It was contended by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naik that the order be reviewed so that the court entertaining the petition afresh would be able to rule on prayer clause (c).4. We are unable to accept this contention. The condition for grant of exemption from the provisions of EPF Act are set out in the scheme framed under the EPF Act. As per Appendix A to Clause 27AA of the said scheme, if an company reports losses for three consecutive financial years or erosion in their capital base shall have their exemption withdrawn from the first day of the next financial year.5. In our view, once it is noticed that the company is reporting losses for three consecutive financial years, there was no question of the petitioners getting benefit of the provisions of exemption under the EPF Act. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons, order dated 29.2.2012 does not require review.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]4. We are unable to accept this contention. The condition for grant of exemption from the provisions of EPF Act are set out in the scheme framed under the EPF Act. As per Appendix A to Clause 27AA of the said scheme, if an company reports losses for three consecutive financial years or erosion in their capital base shall have their exemption withdrawn from the first day of the next financial year.5. In our view, once it is noticed that the company is reporting losses for three consecutive financial years, there was no question of the petitioners getting benefit of the provisions of exemption under the EPF Act. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons, order dated 29.2.2012 does not require review.