AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Mr. D.S. Panti, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.S. Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent.
The application seeking condonation of delay of 27 days, in preferring this Appeal, is not opposed by Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Application No.14771 of 2019 stands disposed of.
This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No.1350 of 2008 dated 03.09.2019. The respondent-corporation had filed WPMS No.1350 of 2008 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the appellant herein.
The order dated 17.07.2008 is an order passed under Section 14 B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act'), levying damages, along with interest, under Section 7 Q of the 1952 Act, against the respondent-writ petitioner.
The appellant had directed the respondent-writ petitioner to pay damages under Section 14B, and interest under Section 7Q, into the respective accounts of the employees of the respondent-corporation within 15 days. Challenge to this order dated 17.07.2008, by the respondent-corporation, was upheld in the order under appeal; and the order impugned therein was quashed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation, would put the maintainability of this appeal in issue, and contend that, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the present case, an intra-court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, would not lie.
Chapter VIII Rule 5 provides for an appeal to the Division Bench from a judgment, not being an order made in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of any order of a Tribunal made, or purported to be made, in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction, among others, under any Central Act with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
"Provident Fund" falls under Entry 24 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, and the 1952 Act is a Central Act with respect to matters enumerated in the concurrent list. Consequently if the order impugned in the writ petition, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is held to be an order passed by a Tribunal, then an intra-court appeal would not lie, as it would then be barred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
A notice was issued to the respondent-writ petitioner on 10.05.2007, pursuant to which the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed, informing them that they should deposit the inspection charges failing which proceedings under Section 7A of the 1952 Act would be initiated for assessment of the dues. While the order impugned in the writ petition does not specifically refer to Section 7A, and instead refers to Section 14B, Section 7A of the 1952 Act, which relates to determination of moneys due from employers, stipulates, in sub section (2) thereof, that the officer conducting the inquiry, under sub-section (1) of Section 7A, shall, for the purposes of such inquiry, have the same power as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for trying a suit in respect of the matters enumerated under clause (a) to (d) thereunder; and any such inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code. Further clause (3) of Section 7A stipulates that no order shall be made, under sub-section (1), unless the employer concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. Likewise the proviso to Section 14B stipulates that, before levying and recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In Organo Chemical Industries and another Vs. Union of India and others : 1979 (4) SCC 573, the Supreme Court held that the power exercised by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, to impose damages under Section 14B, is a quasi-judicial function.
We are satisfied therefore that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 7A read with Section 14B of the 1952 Act for recovery of inspection charges in terms of Section 17 (3), the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner acts as a Tribunal discharging quasi-judicial functions; and, therefore, the bar to the maintainability of an intra-court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, would be attracted.
While the appellant is not without remedy as they can question the order under appeal before the Supreme Court, we are satisfied that an intra-court appeal would not lie against such an order, in the light of bar under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
The Special Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.