IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1023 of 2009
With
I.A.No. 779 of 2009
M/s Dorabji Auto, Singhbhum (East) ...... Petitioner
Versus
Employees Provident Fund
Organizationi, Ranchi & anr. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
---------
For the petitioner: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. S.K.Sahay, Advocate
---------
st
06/ Dated: 1 July, 2009
1. The present petition has been preferred mainly against an order
passed by respondent no. 2 dated December 15, 2008, in a
proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund
& Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred
as “the Act, 1952”), which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of
petition.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent no. 2 has passed the aforesaid order, without giving
adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and
though the report, given by the department, has been relied
upon by the said officer, never a copy of the same was given to
the present petition and, therefore, the petitioner is not knowing
what is the report, given by the department to respondent no. 2
and respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order at
Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, based upon the said secret
report. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is a gross violation of the principles of
natural justice and, therefore, even in appeal also the same
ground will be continued and the matter will have to be
remanded to respondent no. 2 and, therefore, to save the time
and cost, this writ petition has been preferred, so that the
impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be
remanded to respondent no. 2 and a fresh order may be passed
by respondent no. 2, after giving copies of the documents,
which may be relied upon by respondent no. 2. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the
dues have now been paid by the Tata Motors Limited.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has
submitted that the dues of the provident fund have not been
2.
paid by the petitioner and, therefore, after holding enquiry, an
order has been passed under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952,
which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, and the report,
given by the department, has been relied upon by respondent
no. 2.
4. Pursuant to the order dated April 27, 2009, passed by this
Court, respondent no. 2, Guru Dayal Singh son of Mahendra
Singh, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional
Office, Purulia Highway, P.O.- Azadnagar, Mango, P.S.- Mango,
Jamshedpur, Singhbhum (East), is present before this Court. It
is submitted by him that copy of the report, which is referred in
the impugned order, collected by him from the department, was
never given to the petitioner and the whole order is based upon
the said report.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hereby quash and set aside the
order dated December 15, 2008, passed by respondent no. 2
under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952, which is at Annexure 5 to
the memo of petition, mainly for the reasons that copy of the
document, upon which reliance was placed by respondent no.
2, was never supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, even
though the impugned order is an appellable order, by the
appellate authority also under Act, 1952, if the matter is to be
remanded, I am not inclined to dismiss this writ petition, only
on the ground of availability of the efficacious alternative
remedy. Looking to the peculiar facts of the present case, in
exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, I hereby allow this writ petition and quash the impugned
order dated December 15, 2008, passed by respondent no. 2,
which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, mainly on the
ground that there is a gross violation of the principles of natural
justice and I hereby remand the matter for a fresh decision by
respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 shall supply the copies of
the documents, upon which he will be relying upon, to the
petitioner and after giving an adequate opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner, fresh order will be passed by respondent
no. 2 under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952.
6. Rest of the contentions, raised by the petitioner in the memo of
present petition, including the amount said to have already
3.
been paid by the Tata Motors Limited, are left open to be
decided by the concerned respondent authority.
7. This writ petition is, accordingly, with the aforesaid direction
and liberty to respondent no. 2.
I.A.No. 779 of 2009:
1. In view of the aforesaid final order, passed in the writ petition,
I.A. No. 779 of 2009 is also disposed of accordingly.
(D.N. Patel, J)
A.K.Verma/