AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in
No. TN/SL/14759/Exem/97 dated February 12, 1997.
Heard Mr. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for Mr. V. Manohar appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. V. Vibhishanan, learned standing counsel
appearing for the respondents. Though notice of motion was ordered, the respondents have entered appearance and also filed their counter.
The impugned order dated February 12, 1997 has been passed in exercise of powers conferred in para 79 of the Employees'' Provident Fund
Scheme, 1952. The relaxation already granted in favour of the Writ petitioner had been withdrawn and the petitioner has been further directed to
comply with the provisions of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from April 1, 1982 as an
unexempted establishment. This is being challenged on ground that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Concedingly, by proceedings dated August 30, 1996, the writ petitioner was granted relaxation with effect from April 1, 1995 subject to the
conditions set out both in the order as well in Annexures I and II. It has also been stipulated that the writ petitioner has to comply with the
revocation as detailed in Annexure II and it has also been further conditioned that failure to comply with the order will result in withdrawing
relaxation order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, as already pointed out, mainly contended that the impugned order has been passed without even a show
cause notice and in violation of principles of natural justice. Per contra, Mr. V. Vibhishanan standing counsel for the respondents contended that
before the impugned order, the petitioner had been required to comply with the stipulations and conditions as detailed in Annexures I and II as well
as in terms of the relaxation order dated August 30, 1996 and despite such advises the petitioner had failed to constitute Board of Trustees
according to the prescribed pattern and also on the ground that the writ petitioner had evaded membership in Seventh Day Adventist Educational
Institution and thereafter only the order impugned has been passed.
According to Mr. V. Vibhishanan, learned standing counsel for the respondents, as already a number of notices or advice have been given, it is
not necessary to issue a fresh notice or a show cause notice on the facts of the present case and there is no violation of principles of natural justice.
In the counter various violations or omissions on the part of the writ petitioner had been detailed. It is not necessary to go into the details of such
omissions, though such omissions are grave and serious.
It is to be pointed out that before passing the impugned order no show cause notice has been given nor an opportunity has been afforded calling
upon the petitioner to state as to why the relaxation should not be withdrawn or cancelled for any reason or ground. Even assuming that the writ
petitioner had violated the conditions of relaxation the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice had not been followed. The very order
of relaxation is not limited to a particular period and the relaxation is subject to the stipulations or conditions set out in Annexures I and II and in
case of violation, it is well open to the respondents to withdraw or cancel the relaxation. But before cancelling, it is essential to issue a show cause
notice setting out the violation or the ground or reason for withdrawing the relaxation and pass orders after considering the objections, if any, that
may be raised. A valid right accrued to the petitioner in terms of the relaxation proceedings and hence before cancelling the same the respondents
should have issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why relaxation should not be withdrawn or revoked for violation
of conditions or stipulations.
In the present case, as no show cause notice has been issued and as there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned proceeding
is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
It is made clear that it is open to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice, proceed further according to law without further delay and
pass order according to law.
The writ petition is allowed, but without costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed.