AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Â
1. This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing   mode.    Â
2. In this Intra-Court Appeal, the Urban Co-Operative   Bank Ltd., At- Tinikonia Bagicha, P.O.- Buxi Bazar, District- Cuttack, being the
Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.404 of 2016, has   assailed the judgment dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned   Single Judge. The Appeal has
been filed with limited challenge.
Though the Appellant/ Petitioner does not challenge the final   order passed by the learned Single Judge, it assails the
stipulation made by the learned Single Judge that Section 7-B proceeding shall be taken up subject to deposit of at least 25 per cent of the amount
under demand and the said amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for the benefit of the successful party ultimately.
3. The facts of the case are not in dispute.
4. A proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act†for brevity) was initiated by the Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-(C & R),
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavisyanidhi Bhawan, Janpath, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda in respect of
inclusion of Daily Deposit Collection Agents for provident fund benefits. On 21.11.2012, the Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2 passed the final order
under Section 7-A of the Act. The Order was not challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. Rather, the Petitioner, the Appellant before us, filed an
Application under Section 7-B of the Act for review, as was permitted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.22776 of 2012. On 01.01.2016, the Review
Application was rejected by the Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2 under Section 7-B of the Act. The Appellant/ Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.404 of
2016 challenging the said order dated 01.01.2016 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition out of which this Writ Appeal arises.
5. On 22.04.2019, the learned Single Judge passed the judgment setting aside the Annexure-4 to the writ petition and remitting the matter back
to the Authority under Section 7-B of the Act for re-determination of the Review Application. However, the learned Single Judge simultaneously
directed the Appellant/ Petitioner to deposit at least 25 per cent of the amount under demand which would be kept in fixed deposit in the absence of
any such provision in the statute.
6. Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant/ Petitioner submitted that the Act provides options for assailing the order passed
under Section 7-A of the Act by way of review under Section 7-B of the Act or an Appeal under Section 7-I of the Act. He further draws attention
of the Court to the legal provisions to the effect that though Section 7-O of the Act provides for deposit of seventy-five per cent of the amount due,
before the appeal is entertained, no such provision is there in the Act for depositing of twenty-five per cent of the amount due, on filing of an
application for review of an order passed under Section 7-A of the Act. He further submitted that the impugned order directing to deposit twenty-five
per cent of the amount under demand is self-contradictory, beyond the statutory provision and, hence, needs to be set aside.
Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondents/ Opposite Parties submitted that even when there is no provision for deposit of any amount,
this Court can pass appropriate order to save the interest of the employees.
The Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.404 of 2016 was filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.01.2016 passed by the Respondent/ Opposite
Party No.2 at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Annexure-4 is the final order passed by the Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2- Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner-(C & R), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavisyanidhi Bhawan, Janpath, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar, District-
Khurda, wherein a direction was given to the Appellant/ Petitioner to deposit certain amount as it has failed to deposit the Employees’ Provident
Funds under Section 6 of the Act. The Review Application has been rejected by the Authority.
On an analysis of the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the order rejecting the Review Application is not only
unreasoned one but also a mechanical one. The learned Single Judge further observed that the decision involving Section 7-B of the Act is not empty
finality, as the order involving Section 7-B of the Act will have to ultimately merge with the order under Section 7-A of the Act. In the absence of any
reason, the learned Single Judge further observed that even though an appeal lies under Section 7-D of the Act but for not assigning any reason in the
impugned order at Annexure-4, the Petitioner has no scope for filing an Appeal against it. The learned Single Judge further observed that for the
observation and reason indicated therein by him in the preceding paragraph, such proceeding should be concluded only after all out effort for the
identification of the beneficiaries. The learned Single Judge further observed that identification of the persons does not mean that number of persons
could have utilized for the involvement of money but actual identification of the persons with their names, period of engagement and wages they have
drawn.
For the reasons stated thereon, the learned Single Judge interfered with the matter and set aside the order at Annexure-4 and remitted the matter back
to the Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-(C & R), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office,
Bhavisyanidhi Bhawan, Janpath, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda for re-determination of the Review Application directing the Appellant/
Petitioner to appear before the Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-(C & R), Employees Provident Fund
Organization, Regional Office, Bhavisyanidhi Bhawan, Janpath, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda. Learned Single Judge further observed that
till a decision is taken in the Review Application, the demand involved therein shall remain suspended, however, subject to deposit of at least twenty-
five per cent of the amount under demand.
9. On one hand, it is clear that the Act does not provide for deposit of any particular percentage of amount determined under Section 7-A
of the Act in an application filed for review under Section 7-B of the Act. However, the High Court has jurisdiction to impose any such condition in
the interest of justice. It is further borne out from the record that in this case, the Appellant/ Petitioner contended that there has been no specific
determination of the employees engaged by it as Collection Agents and, hence, the order passed by the Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2- Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner-(C & R), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavisyanidhi Bhawan, Janpath, Unit-IX,
Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda is liable to be set aside in a Review Application.
In such a view of the facts, if a Review Application is filed then it shall not be proper on the part of the Court to impose condition to deposit a certain
percentage of amount determined. Moreover, it is not the case of the Respondents/ Opposite Parties that if the deposit of twenty-five per cent of the
amount under demand is made, then it shall be disbursed in favour of the Workmen. As such the Workmen have not been identified as yet.
So, we are inclined to allow the Appeal in part. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is
modified to the extent that the expression “xx xx xx but however subject to deposit of at least 25 % of the amount under demand. The
amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for the benefit of the successful party ultimately†shall not be given effect to or insisted upon.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid observations. The Appellant/ Petitioner is directed to appear before the
Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-(C & R), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office,
Bhavisyanidhi Bhawan, Janpath, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda along with a downloaded copy of this order from the website of the Court
duly attested by Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Petitioner on or before 20th July, 2021. On such event, a fresh hearing of the
matter will be taken up and the same shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the Appellant/ Petitioner along
with a downloaded copy of this order from the website of the Court, after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity to the parties for hearing and
producing relevant papers/ documents.
11. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of.
12. As the restrictions due to resurgence of Covid-19 are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in
the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by concerned Advocate along with seal, in the manner prescribed vide
Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
……………………