Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 374 (JHR)

Kalu Ram Modi v. Recovery Officer

2019-02-05

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein a direction has been sought for quashing the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Recovery officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization , respondent no. 1, it is from the material available on record that the petitioner is not covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 herein after referred as the Act, 1952. A proceeding under section 7 of the aforesaid Act has been initiated for determination of the lease wherein an order was passed by the competent authority. 2. The petitioner has chosen not to assailed the order either under section 7A of the Act, 1952 or appeal provided as under section 7I of the aforesaid Act and therefore the order having attends its finality. The recovery officer in view of the provisions as conferred under section 8 of the aforesaid Act has proceeded to recover the amount as determined in view of the provisions under section 7A of the Act. 3. The petitioner at this juncture had approached this Court by filing a petition being W.P. (C) No. 3709 of 2015 by questioning the authority of the Recovery officer, a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.2016 disposed of this writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Recovery officer for consideration of his grievance in accordance with law. The recovery officer, passed an order dated 04.08.2016 whereby and where under he has came to finding that no new facts has been brought by the petitioner therefore decline to interfere. 4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition and a letter dated 04.08.2016 appended thereto. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings although has been initiated under section 7A of the aforesaid Act and determination has been made by clubbing together the strength of the Intermediate with the Degree. 6. Admittedly the petitioner has chosen not to assail the order passed under section 7A of the Act, 1952 therefore, the said order will said to be attains its finality upon the petitioner. 7. 6. Admittedly the petitioner has chosen not to assail the order passed under section 7A of the Act, 1952 therefore, the said order will said to be attains its finality upon the petitioner. 7. It is evident from the provision under section 8 of the Act as referred herein below that the some is by way of garnishing provision i.e for executing the determination taken under section 7A of the Act, 1952 and as such Recovery officer has got no power to interfere with the determination made by the competent authority in exercise of power conferred under section 7A of the Act, 1952, only forum available to assail the said order is either by filing review or appeal under section 7B under the aforesaid Act and therefore, the Recovery officer has rightly said that no new facts have been brought by the petitioner over and above the fact which were at the time of determination of the dues before the competent authority under the provision of section 7A of the Act. 8. It is the settled position of law that the Employees Provident Fund, Act, 1952 is beneficially legislation meant for workers to aid them at the time of unforeseen situation and when an establishment covered within the definition of the Act, 1952, it is the duty of the establishment to deposit quantum as stipulated under the provisions of the Act in the Employees Provident Account of the respective Workers so that it may be paid to them at the time of exigency or emergency. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact that in the scope and object of the Act, 1952 the Recovery officer has rightly proceeded with, therefore, he declines to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.