Case: KELVIN JUTE CO LTD WORKERS PROVIDENT FUND AND ANR Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWALA AND OTHERS

142 of the Constitution of India and give a quietus to all other disputes by treating the remittance of Rs. 1.95 Crores as full and final settlement of all the dues without any further liability on the part of M/s. Trend Vyapar Limited either by way of interest or by way of damages. ... 8. The non-applicants have submitted that they are not willing for such a settlement and insisted on disposal of the applications on merits. 9. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel has led the arguments on behalf of M/s Trend Vyapaar Ltd.. According to the learned Senior counsel, the applicant had made a provision, at the time of takeover only for a sum of Rs.1.95 crores, as a contingent liability. It is also submitted that the non-applicants had not raised any objection before the BIFR. Learned Senior Counsel has also made a forceful submission on an alleged fraud played by the non-applicants before the High Court. To quote from the written submission: 15.... The writ petition admits that Kelvin Broadloom was covered by Kelvins S.17 EPF Act exemption. Instead of taking a fresh exemption, Hooghly renamed the Kelvin Broadloom division that it bought from Bajoria Group in 1986 its Waverly Jute Mill Company unit only to take advantage of the 22.6.1961 exemption to an entirely different company of that name. From S.2A of the EPF Act read with the definition of exempted establishment in S.2(fff), it is clear that a company cannot utilize an exemption granted to some other company. 16. In Weaverlys, the fraud is even more brazen. While the Civil Appeal was pending before this Honble Court, in 2011, Hooghly sold its Waverly Jute Mill Company Unit to a company Weaverly Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. newly incorporated in 2011 only to take over the unit by adding letter e after a in Waverly. This was obviously done only to continue to take advantage of the exemption dated 22.6.1961 in favour of the original Waverly Jute Mills Company Limited, Titagarh, 24 Parganas... It is also submitted that in the case of a non-exempted establishment, only a beneficiary employer can stake a claim and in the instant case, no beneficiary has ever made a claim. 10. The arguments in the written submission have been completed by submitting that: 35. In view of the capping of Trend Vyapaars liability at Rs.1.95 crores under the BIFR Scheme in terms of S.18(8) of SICA and the amount of Rs.1.95 crores having been deposited with the RPFC as per this Honble Courts order dated 10.05.2016, it is respectfully prayed that no further liability to pay interest should be fastened on Trend Vyapaar Ltd. Trend Vyapaar Ltd should also be relieved of any liability under paragraph 28 of the Appendix to the EPF Scheme to make good any deficit in Kelvin Trusts accounts if Kelvin Trust is directed to pay interest to Waverly Trust. 36. In any case, in view of RPFCs finding that Waverly Trust is not an exempted trust after the transfer of Kelvin Broadloom unit first to Hooghly and then to Weaverly, under the provisions of paragraph 27AA of the EPF Scheme read with paragraph 29 of the Appendix thereto, Waverly Trust is not entitled to claim any money by way of EPF dues from Trend Vyapaar Ltd or Kelvin Trust. ... 11. Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel, who led the arguments on behalf of the writ petitioner before the High Court (non-applicant herein), has submitted that the issues before the High Court having become final, the same cannot be reopened otherwise than in accordance with law. To quote from the written submission : 17... It is submitted with great respect that the question that Trend Vyapaar Ltd. was in regular payment of Provident Fund dues to its workers was of no consequence at all in the case because the amount of Rs.1.95 Crores with statutory interest from 30.06.1986 till payment was payable by the Kelvin Trust to the Waverly Trust. It did not matter whether Trend Vyapaar Ltd. was paying its workers or not. The finding of Honble Single Judge is that the management of Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. had utilized the funds for its own purposes (in obvious collusion with the trustees of Kelvin Trust). It is submitted that this amounts to defalcation and/or embezzlement by the management of the Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. of the PF accumulations liable to be transferred from the Kelvin Trust to the Waverley Trust. As such, the question of this Honble Court issuing directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India could not arise. 18. Appln. Nos. 6, 9 and 10 are nothing but abuse of the process of Court at the behest of the erstwhile management of Kelvin/Trend Vyapaar Ltd., i.e., the Nathani Group. 19. The PF accumulations alongwith statutory interest due thereon is the amount due under the decree of the Honble High Court, affirmed by this Honble Court, as payable by the Kelvin Trust to the Weaverly Trust, failing which, by the Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd./Trend Vyapaar Ltd. to the Waverly Trust. 20. None of the said IA Nos. 6, 9 and 10/2016 are review applications, nor is there any ground of review. 21. The issue in respect of transfer of the said admitted amount of Rs.1.95 crores with statutory interest thereon from 30.06.1986 is between the Kelvin Trust and the Waverly Trust, failing which, the Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. has to transfer the amount to the Waverly Trust. The workers do not come in the picture. 12. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has taken a stand before this Court that Section 7A, Section 14B and Section 7Q are not applicable in the present case, being a private Trust. But the fact remains that the non applicants did not produce any records before the Commissioner for enabling him to determine the dues, as directed by this Court. 13. We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel and other Counsel appearing for other applicants, intervenors and nonapplicants.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has taken a stand before this Court that Section 7A, Section 14B and Section 7Q are not applicable in the present case, being a private Trust. But the fact remains that the non applicants did not produce any records before the Commissioner for enabling him to determine the dues, as directed by this Court.13. We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel and other Counsel appearing for other applicants, intervenors and nonapplicants.