Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1218 (CAL)

Gurbir Kaur v. Regional Provident Fund

2014-12-24

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY

body2014
ORDER : Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the orders dated 19th November, 2014 and 17th December, 2014. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that Bhatpara Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the said municipality) was brought under the purview of the said Act with effect from 8th of January, 2011. Subsequent thereto, by a memorandum dated 16th of May, 2011, the said municipality was requested to apply for E.P.F. Registration. Thereafter a prayer was made on behalf of the said Municipality to the Department of Municipal Affairs and Urban Development vide memorandum dated 23rd July, 2011 for the purpose of release of funds required for complying with the provisions of the said Act. 2. Mr. Majumder further submits that there was a sincere endeavour on the part of the said municipality to avail necessary funds and such fact would be explicit from the letter dated 2nd of September, 2013 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Municipal Affairs. 3. Mr. Majumder assails the order impugned on the ground that there had been no proper computation of the provident fund dues and that the salaries availed by the employees were not taken into consideration prior to fixation of liability. The financial condition of the said Municipality was also not taken into consideration. In support of such contentions, Mr. Majumder relies upon a judgment delivered in the case of Gurbir Kaur Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Others, (2006) 1 CHN 547 . 4. Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, draws the attention of this Court to the annexure 'P-10' of the writ application and submits that the quantification arrived at, in the order dated 19th November, 2014 under Section 7A of the said Act has been accepted by the said municipality and that they cannot turn back and challenge the said order. Furthermore, she submits that the writ application is not maintainable in view of a remedy of statutory appeal provided under the said Act. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record. 6. Furthermore, she submits that the writ application is not maintainable in view of a remedy of statutory appeal provided under the said Act. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record. 6. A perusal of the order impugned, prima facie, reveals that the records, including the salary statements of the employees were not taken into consideration while quantifying the dues. It was also not taken into consideration that there had been a sincere endeavour on the part of the Municipality to avail necessary funds. Furthermore, the fact that the Municipality was suffering from severe financial crisis is explicit from the letter dated 2nd September, 2013 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Municipal Affairs. 7. The records further reveal that the provident fund authorities have already attached the bank account of the petitioner in the Axis Bank and a pay order of Rs. 68,89,768.95/- has already been issued by the said bank to the provident fund authorities. 8. For the reasons discussed, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner to avail an interim protection. 9. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs to the provident fund authorities by two instalments of Rs. 15 lakhs each on 7th of January, 2015 and on 28th of January, 2015. 10. The respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner till 9th of February, 2015. 11. The parties would be at liberty to mention the matter for enlistment before the appropriate Hon'ble Court. It is made clear that in the event of any default on the part of the petitioner to pay the installments on the dates mentioned above, the respondents would be free to take appropriate steps against the petitioner.