AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—Both the learned counsels submitted that the controversy in the present writ petition already stands covered by the decision of this Court holding that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner himself cannot file a writ petition aggrieved by the order passed by the learned EPF Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-1 of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
They have produced before this Court, a copy of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in WP No. 66171/2009(L-PF) and connected matters, decided on 1.10.2015, between The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Karnataka Lin-gayat Education Society, College Road, Belagaum, in which, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
"4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an identical issue arose in the above said writ petition in WP 27555/2009, wherein the question that was framed for consideration was as follows:
"Whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can be said to be aggrieved of the order of the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in modifying the order dated 18.5.2005 passed by the petitioner determining damages payable under section 14-B of the Act and reducing the same to 15% of the said wages.''''
And the above question was answered as follows:
"The answer to this question is no more res in-tegra in the light of the order dated 14.2.2014 in W.P. No. 38512-514/2013 in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s Indus Fila Limited and another, when once this court having examined section 7-1 of the Act observed that since the petitioner exercised quasi judicial authority the appellate tribunal''s order cannot be said to have adversely affected the right of the petitioner to deprive him of something to which he has a right. It was further observed that the PF Commissioner cannot step into the shoes of a party to the dispute as he is not a party to the lis and any order passed by him is susceptible to an appeal under the statutory provision of Section 7-1 of the Act and hence not competent to maintain the petition. This Court further observed that identical was the finding of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in ''Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Vishakapatnam v. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and another, 2013 (2) LLJ 82 (AP) and that of the High Court of Kerala in The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kerala v. West Coast Petroleum Agency'' DD 12.1.2012 in WPC 32393/2011 (Y) so also that of the High Court of Calcutta in ''Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal and Another v. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi'', DD on 26.9.2012 in W.P. No. 18288(W)/2012.
For the very same reasons, this petition is not maintainable at the instance of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and is accordingly dismissed."
Therefore, the very question raised in this petition having been answered as above, the petition does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed."
In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed for the same reason and in same terms. No costs.