Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) E instant intra-court appeal has been filed under clause 10 the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.05.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4690 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the writ Court has refused to interfere with the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3-the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi, by which, the respondent no. 3 came to the conclusion that respondent no. 6 was continuously in service of the writ petitioner-company even for the period April, 2006 to April, 2009, was an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and declared the respondent no. 6 to be eligible for the membership of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme.
(2.) Before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, it requires to refer certain factual aspects of the case which are necessary to be enumerated here under as:- According to the writ petitioenr, the respondent no. 6 was appointed as employee of the appellant-company on 01.02.2003 in its Ranchi Branch, but subsequently he resigned and left the employment on 31.03.2006. During the period i.e., 01.02.2003 to 31.03.2006, he was allotted Employee Provident Fund (in short 'EPF') A/C No. JH/11003/26 under the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act, 1952') and Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (in short the 'Scheme, 1952'). It is the case of the appellant-company that respondent no. 6 again requested for employment and joined the appellant's establishment at Ranchi on 01.05.2009 and superannuated on 17.01.2014 on attaining the age of 60 years, during the second spell of his employment, the respondent no. 6 was allotted EPF A/C No. JH/11003/365. It is further case of the writ petitioner-appellant that the respondent no. 6 was not in service of the appellant's company for the period April, 2006 to April, 2009, aggrived thereof, the respondent no. 6 approached before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi under the provisions of Para 26 B of the EPF Scheme, who has passed order dated 08.04.2016 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 6 had been held to be an employee of the service of the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order dated 08.04.2016, the writ petitioner, by invoking writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has filed writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 4690 of 2016, wherein the learned Single Judge after calling upon respondent no. 6 as also other respondents has passed order on 11.05.2018 declining to interfere with the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by respondent no. 3-the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.
(3.) Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that it is not a case of conducting an enquiry under Paragraph 26B of the Scheme, 1952, rather if there was any denial of the deposit of subscription amount of respondent no. 6, the provision as contained under Section 14 of the Act, 1952 ought to have been resorted to Submission has been made that respondent no. 6 initially was appointed but subsequent thereto, had been retrenched and again reinstated in service, as such during the intervening period i.e., from April, 2006 to April, 2009, he had never been an employee of the appellant-writ petitioner within the meaning as prescribed under Section 2 (f) of the Act, 1952 rather according to him, the statutory desposit during the said period, has been paid by the contractor but without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the respondent no. 3-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has passed order dated 08.04.2016, which has been declined to be interfered with by the learned Single Judge.;