AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chander Shekhar, J
CM No. 41001/2017
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10050/2017 and CM No. 41000/2017
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.09.2017
passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Delhi in Appeal No. D-1/06/2017.
Notice. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in a business
of Property Management covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 vide Code No., DSSHD/936818
and is complying with the provisions of Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act was initiated against the petitioner vide summon
dated 29.09.2015 for assessment of dues for the period from April 2014 to March 2015, for alleged non-compliance of the Act in respect of workers
engaged through contractors, during the course of inquiry, authorised representative of the petitioner filed each and every documents as desired by the
said authority. He also submitted that the establishment had produced the details of contractors with a request to summon those contractors as
witnesses, but the respondent/inquiry officer was not inclined on issuing notice to the contractors for recording their statements. He further submitted
that the respondent also failed to issue notice to the establishment, which are independently covered under the Act and shifted the burden upon the
petitioner to produce the PF Code No. of those establishments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent has not supplied the copy of the report dated 24.04.2017 to the petitioner
establishment, upon which the entire basis of the impugned order stands. He has also submitted that a copy of the report dated 24.04.2017 has not
been supplied by the respondent to them. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorised representative of the petitioner
regularly appeared before the 7A authority, however no report was supplied to them during the course of the proceedings to file objections to the
same.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assessing officer retyped the calculations made by the Enforcement Officer
(EO) in the impugned order without examining its contents and without giving a chance to negate the contents of the report and assessed the dues on
the basis of assumption and presumptions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per the relevant provisions of the Act, dues shall be calculated on basic wages, dearness
allowances and retaining allowances, but in the present case the 7A authority took 70% of the total amount paid as wages for Provident Fund
deductions and accordingly dues were calculated. It is also submitted that the assessing officer ignored the relevant document like salary sheet and
attendance sheet.
During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is lack of reasoning given in the impugned order to
deposit 60% of the amount, as a pre deposit under Section 7-O of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit 25% of the amount in cash and remaining 25% amount through
bank guarantee with the Appellate Authority i.e. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No.1.
Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and relied upon the certain
judgments wherein the amount varied from 25% to 75%. However, at the end, the counsel for the respondent submitted that without prejudice to the
contentions of the parties and without it being a precedent, if the petitioner deposits 25% of the amount in cash and remaining 25% through bank
guarantee with the appellate authority, as is suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has no objection if the appeal is heard.
Accordingly, in view of the above facts and in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 19.09.2017 stands modified to the extent that the
amount of the pre-deposit stands reduced from 60% to 50% out of which 25% shall be deposited by the petitioner in cash and the other 25% shall be
furnished by the petitioner in the form of the bank guarantee within six weeks. However, this order shall not be construed as precedent.
The appeal shall be heard only after the deposit of the said amount. However, parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 23.11.2017.
Accordingly, the present petition as well as the pending applications are disposed of.