Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15124/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15124 of 2010
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15134 of 2010
=========================================================
GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD (NOW GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION & 1 -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
ASSISTANT
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
LILU K BHAYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR NIRAL R MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 04/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.
Today,
learned advocate Mr. Mehta placed on record affidavit in reply on
behalf of respondent No.1. Copy thereof is served to petitioner.
Affidavit in reply is ordered to place on record.
The
Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 has come into operation from 16th
November, 1995 and this scheme is applicable to all the establishment
where Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 applied. Paragraph 39 of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995
provides for exemption from the operation of this statutory scheme to
any establishments, class of establishments if the employees of the
said establishments are either members of any other pension scheme or
propose to be members of pension scheme wherein pensionary benefits
are at par or more favourable than benefits provided under the
statutory scheme. Therefore, it was notified by respondent No.1 for
information of all concerned that in case any establishment covered
under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952, Gujarat Region proposes to seek exemption from the
operation of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, it may apply to
the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner situated at
Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat, as the case may be on or before 15th
February, 1996. This order/notice was issued by respondent No.1 on
25th January, 1996, Page 149, Annexure ‘I’.
Learned
advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya appearing on behalf of petitioners
submitted that exemption application was made by petitioner on 8th
February, 1996 i.e. on or before last date 15th February,
1996 given by respondent No.1. Therefore, she submitted that question
of payment of damages between period from 16th November,
1995 to 8th February, 1996 does not arise and she relied
upon public notice as referred above – Page 141.
The
second question is about the damages levying on the petitioners vide
order passed by Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation dated 30th
June 2004 which was sent to petitioner through registered A.D. on 6th
July, 2004 under Section 14(B) of PF Act. The second period is from
date of submission of application for exemption 13th
December, 2001 to 25th January, 2002 – period
between date of rejection of application and actual date of payment
which attracts liability for damages. The order which has been placed
on record at Page 21 dated 30th June 2004 as referred
above, where, Page 24 in 2nd Column of period – 1st
January, 2002 to 25th January, 2002 is mentioned but no
amount is mentioned; whether it is correct on the basis of original
order or not ?
Let
it be verified by learned advocate Mr. Niral Mehta appearing on
behalf of respondents and to place on record original order as
referred above before this Court.
Learned
advocate Ms. Bhaya submitted that for aforesaid period i.e. from 1st
January, 2002 to 25th January, 2002, whatever interest
accrued for this period has been paid by petitioner to PF
Commissioner.
Learned
advocate Ms. Bhaya submitted that from rejection of application for
exemption received by petitioner on 27th December, 2001,
but, it was may be dated 13th December, 2001 and
thereafter, on or before 25th January, 2002, the amount of
interest has been paid for aforesaid period by petitioner to PF
Authority.
This
fact may also be verified by learned advocate Mr. Mehta from original
record after receiving information/communication from respondents.
Learned
advocate Ms. Bhaya further submitted that GEB is an exempted
establishment for PF matters with Establishment Code No.GJ920. Board
has separate PF Trust and same is being administered well in total
compliance. Therefore, she submitted that at relevant time, GEB was
in existence having only one PF Code Number, even though, she raised
objection that PF Authority has issued different notices to different
Branches having the same PF Code Number.
Therefore,
let this fact may also be verified by learned advocate Mr. Mehta from
respondents on the basis of original record. However, learned
advocate Mr. Mehta submited that these facts have been dealt with by
respondent No.1 in Para 5 of his affidavit in reply.
Let
learned advocate Mr. Mehta may place on record the details which have
been required by this Court as referred above on next date of
hearing.
Accordingly,
matters are adjourned to 16 th
March, 2011.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top