Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) A short but interesting point has evolved from the respective submissions made at the Bar as to whether Section 12 of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) can be pressed in the arena of the dispute and/or controversies between the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid Act and is depositing contributions, as provided therein. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was depositing the amount towards Employees' Provident Fund in excess to the statutory liability but subsequently started depositing the amount, as specified under Para 29 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The aforesaid action sprung up and assumes the character of a dispute between the employee and the employer. The said action was complained before the authority by the employees and, thereafter, a proceedings was initiated under Section 7A of the said Act. The said proceedings ended with the order which is impugned in this writ petition.
(2.) SINCE the facts are not disputed by either of the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the issue only on the question of law without calling for affidavits. The bone of contention of the respondent authorities, which could be culled out from the impugned order, is because of the provisions contained under Section 12 of the said Act any reduction, either on account of old age pension or the provident fund, is not permissible and, therefore, the action of the petitioner to reduce the amount which was being deposited earlier to a statutory amount, as provided under Para 29 of the said Scheme, is impermissible and not in consonance with the spirit of the said Act.
(3.) MR . Sengupta, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the voluntary payment of excess amount over and above the statutory amount cannot act as a deter on the part of the petitioner to apply the statutory provisions and, therefore, the authorities cannot initiate any proceedings under Section 7A of the said Act which culminated into a direction upon the petitioner to pay the excess amount over the statutory quantification. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghatana and Another v. Management of Marathwada Gramin Bank and Others, reported in : 2011 (4) L.L.N. 422 (SC).;