Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) THE substantial question of law which has arisen in this set of three writ petitions C.P.W. No. 3429 of 1979 Punjabi Film and News Corporation Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Punjab Haryana H.P. and Chandigarh. C.W.P. No. 933 of 1980 Charan Dass Sanjev Kumar v. The Government of India and Anr. and C.W.P. No. 966 of 1980 Sham Lal -Ram Lal v. Government of India and Anr. - -is whether no recovery can be made from the employers under Section 7 -A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while an application filed under Section 19 -A by the Employer is still pending with the Central Government and for the determination of this point the writ petitions were admitted to D.B.
(2.) FOR facility of reference, we are noticing the facts of C.W.P. No. 3429 of 1979 in our order as the question of law arises on similar facts in these three cases before us. The staff of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. found that the Petitioner was covered by the provisions of the Act and it was asked to file an application on the prescribed form. According to the Petitioner, it was not covered by the Act, but the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner found that it was covered under the Act and ultimately passed an order under Section 7 -A of the Act and found the amount recoverable from the employer and ordered that the amount be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 8 of the Act. After the aforesaid order was passed and recovery was sought to be made, the employer filed a representation under Section 19 -A of the Act against the aforesaid order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner before the Central Government and challenged the levy of the amount as also the applicability of the Act and the scheme for various reasons detailed in the representation. Since, the recovery was sought to be made, the employer along with it also filed an application for staying the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The Under -Secretary to the Government of India informed the employer that the stay cannot be granted as there is no provision in the Act giving power to the Central Government in that behalf. After the passing of the aforesaid order declining stay, the employer came to this Court by way of present writ petition as the recovery was sought to be made through the Assistant Collector, Chandigarh, for taking proceedings under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Similar are the facts in the other two connected writ petitions.
(3.) THE first and the foremost argument raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that the moment an employer files an application under Section 19 -A of the Act, before the Central Government, there is automatic stay of recovery proceedings. In support of this argument, there is no statutory provision in favour of the Petitioners, but reliance is placed on Jai Bharat Woollen and Silk Mills v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner Punjab and Ors. : 1960 I L.L.J. 489, T.R. Raghava Iyenger and Co. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Madras : AIR 1963 Mad 238 Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. : AIR 1958 Cal 570 Dhanalakshi Weaving Works and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Trivandrum, 1904 I L.L.J. 528 and Manjunatha Setty (M.L.) v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. : 1964 I L.L.J. 697.;