ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD Vs. REGIIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
LAWS(CAL)-2010-1-34
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 11,2010

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD Appellant
VERSUS
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioners in this Article 226 petition dated July 17, 2008 are questioning the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-regional Office, Howrah dated May 18, 2007, Annexure-P10 at p. 106 and April 2, 2008, Annexure-P25 at p.220, and the direction of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-regional Office, Howrah dated June 2, 2008, Annexure-P26 at p.223. While the orders were passed under Sections 7-A and 7-B respectively of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act 19 of 1952), the direction was given calling upon the establishment concerned of the first petitioner to comply with the Section 7-B order and thus avoid legal complications.
(2.) Jaya Shree Textiles is a unit of the first petitioner. Jaya Shree is an establishment covered by the provisions of the Act 19 of 1952. Alleging that though it was required, it did not "extend Provident Fund membership to the workers engaged in loading/unloading/stocking in Cargo Ship for the period March 1, 1989 to July, 2006", the Commissioner initiated the Section 7-A proceedings in which he issued a summons dated August 21, 2006, Annexure P23 at p.204 and passed the impugned Section 7-A order. And by the impugned Section 7-B order the Commissioner rejected Jaya Shree's application for review of the impugned Section 7-A order.
(3.) Assailing the Section 7-A order, Mr. Sengupta, Counsel for the petitioners, has argued three points: (i) the Section 7-A order is vitiated by a jurisdictional error; (ii) even if the Section 7-A order is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error, it is vitiated by procedural impropriety; and (iii) even if the Section 7-A order is not vitiated by any procedural impropriety, then it is vitiated by non-consideration of the points urged. As to the Section 7-B order, Mr. Sengupta has argued that though the three points on which the Section 7-A order has been questioned were raised under Section 7-B, the Commissioner rejected the Section 7-B application citing the reasons recorded in the Section 7-A order.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.