Case: CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Vs. M/S INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would be clear from the facts statedOn 19.05.2008, theBoard of Trustees issued summonsSection 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as) to theIndore Composite Pvt. Ltd. for non-payment of the Provident Fund contribution in the year 2005-2006 on the wages lesser than the minimum wages prescribed for the employees under the category of semi-skilled. The representative of theattended the enquiry and submitted that the Department has not considered non-working days of the employees already furnished in Form 3A for the year 2005-2006 and there are some employees under the category of unskilled whereas the Department has treated all of them as semi-skilled. Theafter considering the aforesaid, by order dated 15.04.2010, directed the4/- within 15 days from the receipt of that order. It was also stated that the above orderSection 7A is without prejudice to any actionSections 7C, 7Q and 14B of theOn 21.01.2015, thein exercise of the powerSection 14B of the Act, ordered theto pay damages and allied dues offor the delayed payments from 01/2007 to 02/2006 toChallenging the said order, thefiled an appeal being ATA(8) of 2015 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Vide order dated 06.09.2016, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by theFelt aggrieved, thefiled writ petition being Writ Petitionof 2017 before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed thent felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning:
Having heard the learnedfor the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits in accordance withIn our opinion, the need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned for the reason that the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the) cursorily without dealing with any of the issues arising in the case as also the arguments urged by the parties in support of theirIndeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings impugned in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. The only expression used by the Division Bench in disposing of the appeal isIt is not clear to us as to what was that due consideration which persuaded the Division Bench to dispose of the writ petition because we find that in the earlier paras only facts are setTime and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learnedfor the parties in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view, has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits.