- (1.) The petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated May 13, 2008 are questioning a notice dated March 2008 ( WP p.238) issued by an Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment calling upon the Chairman of Bata India Limited Employees' Statutory Provident Fund to show cause why exemption granted to the establishment concerned under s.17(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 should not be cancelled under sub-s.(4) of s.17. The show cause notice was challenged alleging that evident vagueness and non-application of mind vitiated it by a jurisdictional defect. By an order dated May 15,2008 the WP was admitted and the respondents were restrained from taking any further step on the basis of the notice. Admittedly, by a decision dated May 19, 2008 the Central Government cancelled the exemption and steps were taken for publishing the decision in the Official Gazette.
(2.) Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioners submits as follows. By filing a CAN No. 5915 of 2008 the petitioners questioned the decision dated May 19, 2008. They filed a contempt application as well. They complied with the requirements. Hence it was unfair to cancel the exemption. This Court passed an order dated June 3,2008 restraining the respondents from taking any step on the basis of the decision. Hence it should be quashed.
(3.) The petitioners alleging that the show cause notice was vitiated by an evident vagueness, ought to have called upon the Central Government to remove the vagueness. Vagueness, if any, could not and did not vitiate the notice by an incurable jurisdictional defect. The Central Government granting the exemption possessed the power to issue the notice asking the employer to show cause why the exemption should not be cancelled. Specific allegations were made. Hence it cannot be said that the notice was vitiated by non-application of mind.;