Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 582 (BOM)

Union of India v. Press Trust of India

2014-03-03

N.M.JAMDAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : N.M. JAMDAR, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up by consent of the parties for final hearing. By this petition, the petitioner, Union of India challenges the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 19th September, 2011. The Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and has set aside the order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Authority, u/s 14B of the Employees' Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondent is a Government undertaking. The respondent undertaking is covered under the provisions of the Act. The Provident Fund Authorities had issued notice to the respondent to pay its contribution under the Act read with Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Pension Scheme. The respondent was called upon to pay the dues for the month from November, 1995 to September 2007 A show-cause notice was issued on 18th March, 2009, as to why the damages u/s 14B of the Act be not levied against the respondent. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bandra, Mumbai heard the proceedings. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was a stay as regards the Provident Fund Scheme by the Calcutta High Court which was vacated on 8th June, 2014 and after the vacation of the stay, the respondent did not take requisite steps in time. The Commissioner found that there was a delay on the part of the respondent and considering the scheme of the Act found that it was a fit case for imposition of the damages to the tune of Rs. 3,51,71,988/- alongwith the interest and accordingly, the Commissioner disposed of the proceedings by his order dated 12th November, 2009. 2. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal before Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was a delay on the part of the respondent. However, by a cryptic order the Tribunal held that the delay in payment of contribution does not appears to be intentional and that the damages and interest is on the higher side and set aside the order of the Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner. 3. A grievance is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to my mind, rightly that the order passed by the Tribunal discloses no reasons at all. 3. A grievance is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to my mind, rightly that the order passed by the Tribunal discloses no reasons at all. The Tribunal has held that there was delay on the part of the respondent. Thereafter, the Tribunal stated that the question to be decided is whether the delay is intentional and referred to the decision of the Madras High Court and then straightway came to the conclusion that the delay is not intentional one. All this was done in four sentences, in one paragraph. The Tribunal exercises quasi judicial functions and adjudicate rights of the parties. It is expected that it should give reasons in support of its order. The learned Counsel for the respondent sought to contend that the finding that there was a delay on the part of the respondent is itself incorrect as the respondent has been paying its dues in time. He submitted that in fact excess amount is paid by the respondent. If that be so, this ground which is advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents has also not been considered in the order. Thus the contentions of both the parties have not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal is invested with the jurisdiction as a final authority under the Act and the disputed questions of facts cannot be decided for the first time in the writ petition, if at all. It will be thus appropriate it the Tribunal is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the appeal by giving a reasoned order. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 19th September, 2011 is set aside and the Tribunal shall decide the appeal afresh. The learned Counsel for the respondent states that the pendency of the matters before the Appellate Tribunal is high. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal within a period of six months from today. 5. The Registry to send the writ of this order to the Appellate Tribunal at the earliest. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.