AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harish Tandon, J.—The petitioner has assailed the order dated June 23, 1999 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, West Bengal in a proceeding u/s 7A of the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (said Act) holding that the establishment is covered under the Scheduled Head "Electrical Mechanical and General Engineering Product" as well as under the Schedule "Printing" and directed the assessment of the dues. At the time of initiation of the proceeding u/s 7A of the said Act, a demand was raised relating to the dues covered under the said Act on a categorical assertion that the establishment is engaged in "Plastic and Plastic Products", included in Schedule-I of the said Act. It further reveals therefrom that as on August 1, 1996 the said establishment has employed 20 persons.
Since the aforesaid demand was disputed, a proceeding u/s 7A of the said Act was initiated. In course of the proceeding, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the Enforcement Officer to visit the establishment once again and to verify the details of the employment in the light of the objection raised by the employer.
The report of the Enforcement Officer reveals that the establishment does not come under the Scheduled Head "Plastic and Plastic Products" but the establishment can demand the coverage under the Scheduled Head Trading and Commercial".
The Provident Fund Commissioner, while passing the final order, made a categorical finding that the establishment is neither engaged in production of "Plastic and Plastic Products" nor is covered under the Scheduled Head "Trading and Commercial" but has gone further to hold, that the establishment is coming under the Scheduled Head "Electrical Mechanical and General Engineering Product".
Section 7A of the said Act provides for determination by the authority, named therein, in case a dispute arises regarding applicability of the Act to the establishment and determination of an amount due from the employer.
There is no doubt that the authorities named therein exercises a quasi-judicial function which can be fortified from sub-section (2) which provides that the said officer shall have the powers as vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Although the order, passed u/s 7A of the said Act, is appealable u/s 7R but Section 7B provides an additional remedy by way of a review which has been taken recourse to by the petitioner in the instant case.
The order of review is also challenged in this writ petition.
Sub-section (5) of Section 7B prohibits an appeal against an order rejecting an application for review.
The quasi-judicial authorities are required to make determination judicially and on the basis of the respective stands of the parties put-forth in writing before it or on the basis of other evidence. The authority is not supposed to make out a new case for the party when the parties have not made out such case. The party, who has either initiated and/or is defending a proceeding, should be made aware of the case which they have to meet out and they cannot be put on surprise by a complete strange and alien case without affording opportunity to make any submission thereupon. Prevaricating of stand from one stage to another stage of the proceeding should not be encouraged.
In the present case the authorities initiated a proceeding as if the establishment is covered under the Scheduled Head "Plastic and Plastic Products" which has been negated by the Enforcement Officer at the time of inspection and a second case of the establishment, being covered under the Scheduled Head Trading and Commercial", is made out.
It would further be culled out from the impugned order that the Provident Fund authorities have further changed their stand and tried to make out a case that the establishment is covered under the Scheduled Head "Electrical, Mechanical and General Engineering Product" which was neither made out before making submission before the said authority nor the same is supported by any documentary evidence, having been produced before the said authority; at least this Court does not find any such reflection in the impugned order.
This Court, therefore, finds that both the orders, passed by the Authorities u/s 7A and Section 7B of the said Act, are not sustainable and the same are, thus quashed and set aside.
The writ petition succeeds.
There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the connected application, being C.A.N. 3971 of 2003, is rendered infructuous and the same, accordingly, is also disposed of.