Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1152 (RAJ)

NFI Ltd. v. R. P. F. Commissioner

2001-07-26

S.K.KESHOTE

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection re-maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that this writ petition is directed by the petitioner against the show cause notice and it is not maintainable. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in contra relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1) (2001) 8 SCC 291, contended that this writ petition is maintainable. It is next contended that the matter under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1952) has been decided finally and same could not have been re-opened at the instance of the very complaint. This re-opening of the matter is without jurisdiction and this petition is maintainable. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the challenge is made in this petition by the petitioner to the notice given to the respondent under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952. This notice is dated 9th July 96, Annexure-6 on the record at page no. 66. I have gone through this document and it is a notice by which the petitioner has been called upon to show cause against the proposed, action. Having gone through contents of this document, there remains no doubt and otherwise also it is not in dispute that against the show cause notice this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Against the show cause notice writ petition is maintainable only where the Court is satisfied that the authority which issued the same lacks totally jurisdiction in the matter. In case, where the authority does not lack jurisdiction totally to give notice the writ petition is not maintainable against it. In support of this preposition if any decision needs fruitful, the reference may have to the decision of the Apex Court in case of (2) Executive Engineer Bihar Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and Others (1996) 1 SCC 327 . 6. It is true that the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue this notice to the petitioner but by mere this statement it cannot be taken so. Ramesh Kumar Singh and Others (1996) 1 SCC 327 . 6. It is true that the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue this notice to the petitioner but by mere this statement it cannot be taken so. The learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to satisfy how this show cause notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner under Section 7A of the Act, 1952 is without jurisdiction. 7. It is not a case where the respondent has already decided the matter earlier finally. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the order dated 23.8.95, Annexure-5 of the respondent. Having gone through this order, I am satisfied that this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier matter has been decided is wholly untenable. The order dated 23.8.95 reads as under : "Present:-Shri J.S. Pareek Shri Pareek submits that a list of contractor employees has already been furnished in r/o PF deductions are being made, the list dated 21.2.95 Reg. the estt. which have done of work with us they being independent contractors are not liable flour PF deductions since they are not our employees. He has already verified the records and in this report he has endorsed our views. The squad was constituted to verify the position and the squad also supported the views already held by the A.O. Shri Satish Jain, DR submits that r.o.'s report is available there is another report from the squad dated 24.5.95 according to which contr. are independent contractors and they have recommended that PF in r/o independent contractor can not be recovered from the N.E.I. After going through the squad report, it is seen that side contractors are independent contractors not liable for PF deductions in r/o their employees. The proceedings were initiated based on complaint from S.N. Saboo, we can make a refer to Mr. Saboo and in case a specific case is brought to our notice case could be initiated for determination of cases. The proceedings may be closed subject to the above. I agree with the view of the D.R., the proceedings are closed accordingly. sd/- (Kalyan Chand) RPFC" 8. The matter has not been decided by that officer finally. It is true that the proceedings were initiated on the complaint of Shri Saboo. The proceedings may be closed subject to the above. I agree with the view of the D.R., the proceedings are closed accordingly. sd/- (Kalyan Chand) RPFC" 8. The matter has not been decided by that officer finally. It is true that the proceedings were initiated on the complaint of Shri Saboo. The officer was satisfied that the site contractors being independent contractors are not liable for PF deduction in respect of their employees, the proceedings were closed. But from this order, it is clear that these proceedings were closed subject to liberty that, in case a specific case is brought to the notice of the officer, case would be initiated for determination of dues. 9. The order Annexure-5 leaves no doubt whatsoever in the mind of the Court that it is not the final decision given in the matter. The matter is closed for want of specific case and it was open to the complainant to bring a specific case and in case a specific case is brought to the notice of the officer the proceedings are to be initiated for the determination of the amount under Section 7A of the Act, 1952. 10. In this case the petitioner instead of coming directly to this Court by filing this petition should have filed its reply to the show cause notice. It is permissible and open to the petitioner to raise its all objections and contentions against the show cause notice in the reply thereto. It is difficult to believe what to accept that the petitioner would not have known of this legal position. Despite the fact that the matter was not finally decided b the officer earlier this writ petition against the show cause notice is filed which is not maintainable. From this action and approach of the petitioner it could reasonably be inferred that this is an attempt made by the petitioner to stall the final adjudication in the matter. 11. The proceedings initiated under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952, and against the order finally passed where it goes adverse to the petitioner a statutory appeal is available to it. In the matter where against the final order to be made in the proceeding a statutory appeal is provided and still the petitioner directly comes to this Court, it is nothing but an attempt on its part to abuse the process of the Court. In the matter where against the final order to be made in the proceeding a statutory appeal is provided and still the petitioner directly comes to this Court, it is nothing but an attempt on its part to abuse the process of the Court. By this petition the petitioner has consumed the valuable and precious judicial time to the Court. There is heavy work load in the Courts and it is expected from the litigants and moreso from the litigation of the category to which petitioner belongs not to waste a single second of the judicial time of the Court. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court on which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of little help to the learned counsel in the facts of this case. 12. This way if the litigation is filed by the litigant of this category the other litigants who are in queue shall be adversely affected. It is a case where Court should not feel content and satisfy by simple dismissal of the case but exemplary costs are to be imposed. Accordingly this petition fails and same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Out of this amount Rs. 3,000/- is to be paid to the respondent RPFC and remaining amount is to be deposited by the petitioner in the Chief Minister Relief Fund. This deposit is to be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the receipt of deposit of amount is to be produced on the record of this case. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the petitioner forthwith.Petition Dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- *******