M/S BIHAR CEMENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS vs THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

D.N. Patel, A.C.J:

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) whose writ petition being W.P.(C) No.785 of 2007 was

dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 8  th August, 2012 and hence, the appellant (original petitioner) has

preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred for the following reliefs:-

“(a) For quashing the order No. S.R.O./JSR/PD Cell/JH/4710/06/302 dated 16.11.06 issued under the signature of the respondent no.2 i.e.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, whereby and whereunder the said respondent without giving proper opportunity of hearing, has assessed the

damages U/S:14-B of the Employee Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952.

(b) For quashing the further order No.JH/S.R.O./JSR/4710/PDCell/06/390 dated 11.01.07 issued under the signature of the respondent no.2, whereby

and whereunder the said respondent has in most arbitrary and illegal manner rejected the review petition of the petitioner on the ground that when

the order U/S:14-B has already been passed, the same cannot be re-opened, whereas there is specific provision under Section-7B of the E.P.F. &

M.P. Act for review.

(c) For quashing the order dated 14.12.06 issued under the signature of respondent no.2 u/s 8F of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act whereby and whereunder

the said respondent has directed the banker of the petitioner to remit/transfer the alleged amount from the account of the petitioner.

(d) For commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass necessary order considering the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(e) for commanding upon the respondents not to take any coercive action in the light of orders dated 16.11.06 and 11.01.07 which has been passed in

a most arbitrary and mechanical manner without observing the relevant provisions of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act, 1952.â€​

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued out the case at length and submitted that there is a delay in payment of the provident

fund amount and hence proceedings were initiated under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for

short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1952) which is for penalty upon the delayed payment.

The order was passed under Section 14-B of the Act, 1952 dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure-9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Though

this order is appellable order under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952, such appeal was not preferred by this appellant (original petitioner).

It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that review application was preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) which was

dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal).

It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that as the order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the respondent under Section 14-B of the Act,

1952 was not complied with, recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 8-F of the Act, 1952 and an order was passed on 14.12.2006

(Annexure-10 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). As no appeal was preferred against the order under Section 14-B dated 16.11.2006 and

directly the writ petition was preferred being W.P.(C) No.785 of 2007, the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters

Patent Appeal cannot be entertained by this Court because efficacious alternative remedy has not been availed though it is available with this appellant

(original petitioner). 7. Having heard the counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant

(original petitioner) who has preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No.785 of 2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment

and order dated 08.08.2012 and hence the original petitioner has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal.

It appears that the provident fund amount for the period March, 2002 to February, 2006 was delayed payment under the Employees' Provident Fund

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

It further appears from the facts of the case that proceeding under Section 14-B of the Act was initiated for recovery of the interest for the penalty

upon this appellant and ultimately an order was passed under Section 14-B by the respondents dated 16.11.2006.

It appears that this is an appellable order under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952, but, no appeal was preferred by this appellant (original petitioner).Â

It further appears from the facts of the case that instead of filing statutory appeal under Section 7-I, review application was preferred by this appellant

(original petitioner).

As there is no power vested in the respondent-authorities to review an order passed under Section 14-B, it was rejected vide order dated

11.01.2007 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal).

It further appears from the facts of the case that as the order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the respondents under Section 14-B remained intact and

as it is and as it has attained its finality because no appeal was preferred, recovery proceeding were initiated under Section 8-F of the Act, 1952 and

an order was passed on 14.12.2006 under Section 8-F for recovery of the penalty amount with interest. The said order is at Annexure-10 to the

memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.

All these three orders which are dated 16.11.2006 under Section 14-B as well as order dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure-12) and order dated

14.12.2006 (Annexure-10) were under challenge in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.785 of 2007.

It appears that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) No.785 of 2007 because statutory remedy by

way of statutory appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 is available and the same was not availed by this appellant. Hence, we see no error

committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned

Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) No.785 of 2007 dated 08.08.2012. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed.

Nonetheless, liberty is reserved with this appellant to challenge the order passed by the respondent dated 16.11.2006 and all the consequential

orders in accordance with law before appropriate forum.Â