Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/335/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 335 of 2010
=========================================================
SAURASTRA
CHEMICALS LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS E. SHAILAJA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
DEVANG NANAVATI FOR MS ANUJA S NANAVATI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 09/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned counsel for the respective parties waive service of rule.
With the consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final
hearing today.
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the demand Notice dated 02.09.2009 issued by respondent
no.1-Provident Fund authority, whereby, the petitioner has been
directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,15,24,982/- with them, being
the interest amount on delayed transfer of past accumulations payable
to the EPF Trust.
2. The
facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are that the petitioner
is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged
in the business of manufacturing chemicals, etc. The petitioner was
declared an exempted unit, as per Section 64 of the Employees’
Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, w.e.f. 01.01.1963. The
petitioner used to regularly deposit / credit the amount of Provident
Fund with respondent no.2.
3. Vide
letter dated 04.09.2006, the petitioner informed respondent
no.1-authority that it is willing to withdraw its membership from
respondent no.2 w.e.f. 01.11.2006 and that thereafter, the employees
contributions shall be deposited with respondent no.1-authority.
Accordingly, w.e.f. 01.11.2006, the petitioner ceased to be a member
of respondent no.2.
4. Vide
communication dated 22.12.2006, respondent no.1-authority informed
respondent no.2 to transfer the amounts of Provident Fund deposited
by the petitioner before it. Vide communication dated 14.03.2007, the
petitioner also requested respondent no.2 to transfer the said
amounts to respondent no.1. However, it appears that respondent no.2
did not transfer the same.
5. Some
time later, the petitioner received complaints from the employees and
respective Union that interest for the month of August 2007 had not
been credited in the respective accounts of employees. The petitioner
informed both the respondents about the said discrepancy. In response
thereof, respondent no.2 informed the petitioner vide communication
dated 14.01.2009 that interest was not permissible for the month of
April 2007 in view of the provisions of the said Act / Scheme.
6. Therefore,
the petitioner made several representations to respondent
no.1-Authority. However, no action was taken. To the shock of the
petitioner, respondent no.1-authority issued the impugned demand
Notice dated 02.09.2009 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs.2,15,24,982/- towards the interest on delayed transfer for the
period from the date of cancellation of the exemption, i.e.
31.10.2006 to March 2007 and also interest on delayed transfer for
the month of April 2007. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
has preferred the present petition.
7. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The issue involved in this petition pertains to
non-payment of interest on the delayed transfer of past
accumulations. The concerned parties have filed their replies along
with supporting documents.
8. During
the course of hearing, a consensus has been arrived at between the
parties whereby, they have agreed that to appear before respondent
no.1-authority, who shall adjudicate the issue on hand, after
considering the submissions and/or documents, which may be produced
by the concerned parties.
9. In
view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties and since
the matter involves disputed questions of facts, in the fitness of
things, it would be appropriate that respondent no.1-authority
examines the entire issue minutely and renders its decision upon it,
after considering the reply/written submissions that may be preferred
by the respective parties and also the documents, if any, that may be
produced by either party. Orders accordingly. The Notice dated
02.09.2009 issued by respondent no.1-authority and impugned in this
petition shall be treated to be a Notice to the petitioner. The
representatives of both the petitioner and respondent no.2 shall
remain present before respondent no.1-authority on 19 th
July 2010 at 1100 hrs. Both the petitioner and respondent
no.2 shall be at liberty to file their reply/written submissions,
along with necessary document/s, if any, upon which they want to
place reliance. Respondent no.1-authority shall follow necessary
procedure, as prescribed under the said Act, before rendering its
final decision and shall also afford an opportunity of hearing to
both the parties. After considering all the aspects of the case and
the reply/written submissions that may be filed by the concerned
parties, respondent no.1-authority shall render its decision, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. It is made
clear that until final decision is rendered by respondent
no.1-authority, no coercive action shall be initiated against the
petitioner. It is expected that both the parties shall co-operate in
the aforesaid proceedings so that they could be completed within a
reasonable period.
10. With
the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed
of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to
costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top