AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The Petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
The impugned order reads as under:
The order passed by the EPF authority u/s 7A is in challenge in this Appeal.
The case of the Appellant is that the Appellant is an educational institution managed by charitable trust. The E.O who visited the establishment alleged that EPF Act is applicable. On the basis of the report, the 7A proceeding was to started and a copy of the report supplied to him. It was seen that the E.O included the teaching and no teaching staff and calculated contribution wrongly. No time was allowed to him to place his case and the order passed by the Authority is arbitrary one.
The case of the Respondent is that the Appellant appointed more than 20 employees and have not extended the benefit of EPF Act to the said employees. So the assessment was made rightly.
It is contended that no opportunity was provided to the Appellant to place his case and the calculation made was incorrect one.
The learned Officer who represented the Respondent supported the order.
No material was available to show that there was error in the calculation. The order reveals that notice was served on the Appellant and he appeared through the Advocate. The averment in the appeal memo also shows that the accused appeared in the 7A proceeding. But had not co-operative. So the order was passed as per the available matter.
In the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Employees'' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Others, the Lordship held that "if such opportunity is not availed, the RPFC will be at liberty to decide the matter appropriately". In this case also, the Appellant had not co-operated with the authority, there is no illegality when the order was passed with the available material. No inconsistency is noticed. Hence ordered that the appeal is dismissed. The order of the authority is hereby confirmed. Copy may be sent to both the parties and recorded be sent to record room.
The Petitioner was issued notice, by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai, for adjudicating the contribution due u/s 7A of The Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The notice was issued in pursuance to the inspection by the enforcement staff. The Petitioner was summoned vide notice dated 29.12.2006 for the date of hearing fixed on 23.01.2007. In pursuance to the notice, the Petitioner appeared with Advocate, and made a request for supply of the copy of the list of employees, as reported by the enforcement staff. The request was accepted, and the Petitioner was supplied with the copy of the Report of the enforcement staff, and the hearing of the case was adjourned.
On the adjourned date of hearing, again request was again made, which was declined. In spite of the request of the adjournment having been declined, the Petitioner chose not to assist in the case. Accordingly, the order was passed u/s 7A of the Act, for recovery of amount due.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as this has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the adjournment was declined, without any reason, which caused prejudice to the Petitioner.
This contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was rightly rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Romala Sawahakari Chilli Mills Ltd., V. Rpfc (supra), as in the event of a person not availing of the opportunity given, he cannot complain of the violation of principles of natural justice.
It is well settled law, that principles of natural justice cannot be defined in strait jacket formula, and has to be considered in the facts of each case. Once it is proved, that the Petitioner was given an opportunity, which was not availed, it cannot be said, that there was any violation of principles of natural justice.
The second contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the calculation has been wrongly made, also cannot be looked into at this stage, as no such plea was raised before the learned Tribunal. It is also well settled law, that the point not raised before the Tribunal, whose order is under challenge, cannot be raised before this Court for the first time.
No merits. "Dismissed".
No costs.
Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.