Central Board Of Trustees vs M/S Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7240 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.16841 of 2018)

Central Board of Trustees ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the High

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.07.26 15:31:33 IST

Petition No.1046 of 2017 whereby the Division Reason:

1

Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition

filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the order

dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Employees

Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in

ATA No.214(8) of 2015.

3) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass

and it would be clear from the facts stated

hereinbelow.

4) On 19.05.2008, the appellant­Central Board of

Trustees issued summons under Section 7A of the

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”) to the respondent­M/s Indore Composite Pvt.

Ltd. for non­payment of the Provident Fund

contribution in the year 2005­2006 on the wages

lesser than the minimum wages prescribed for the

employees under the category of semi­skilled. The

representative of the respondent attended the

2 enquiry and submitted that the Department has not

considered non­working days of the employees

already furnished in Form 3A for the year 2005­

2006 and there are some employees under the

category of unskilled whereas the Department has

treated all of them as semi­skilled. The appellant,

after considering the aforesaid, by order dated

15.04.2010, directed the respondent to deposit

Rs.87,204/­ within 15 days from the receipt of that

order. It was also stated that the above order under

Section 7A is without prejudice to any action under

Sections 7C, 7Q and 14B of the Act.

5) On 21.01.2015, the appellant, in exercise of

the power under Section 14B of the Act, ordered the

respondent to pay damages and allied dues of

Rs.91,585/­ for the delayed payments from

01/2007 to 02/2006 to 05/2013.

3

6) Challenging the said order, the respondent

filed an appeal being ATA No.214 (8) of 2015 before

the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,

New Delhi. Vide order dated 06.09.2016, the

Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order

dated 21.01.2015 passed by the appellant.

7) Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition

being Writ Petition No.1046 of 2017 before the High

Court. The High Court, by the impugned order,

dismissed the petition.

8) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed the

present appeal by way of special leave before this

Court.

9) The short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division

Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing

the appellant’s writ petition.

10) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we are

constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the

impugned order and remand the case to the Division

Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petition

afresh on merits in accordance with law.

12) After setting out the facts, the Division Bench

proceeded to disposed of the writ petition with the

following observations in its concluding paras which

read as under:

“On due consideration of the aforesaid on the basis of the fresh documents and affidavit for taking additional documents on record, we cannot direct the establishment to pay damages for the period from March 2006­ April 2010 when all these objections were not taken before the learned Tribunal.

Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no case for interference with the impugned order is warranted.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.” (emphasis supplied)

5

13) In our opinion, the need to remand the case to

the High Court has occasioned for the reason that the

Division Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the

appellant (petitioner) cursorily without dealing with

any of the issues arising in the case as also the

arguments urged by the parties in support of their

case.

14) Indeed, in the absence of any application of

judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy

involved in the appeal and without there being any

discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical

findings on the issues and why the findings impugned

in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed,

while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the

light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is

difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the

Division Bench. The only expression used by the

Division Bench in disposing of the appeal is “on due

6 consideration”. It is not clear to us as to what was

that due consideration which persuaded the Division

Bench to dispose of the writ petition because we find

that in the earlier paras only facts are set out.

15) Time and again, this Court has emphasized on

the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every

case which must contain the narration of the bare

facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues

arising in the case, the submissions urged by the

parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues

involved and the reasons in support of the findings on

all the issues arising in the case and urged by the

learned counsel for the parties in support of its

conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division

Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while

disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view,

has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties

because it deprived them to know the reasons as to

7 why one party has won and other has lost. We can

never countenance the manner in which such order

was passed by the High Court which has compelled us

to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding

the writ petition afresh on merits.

16) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow

the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand

the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for

deciding the writ petition afresh on merits in

accordance with law keeping in view our observations

made supra.

17) We, however, make it clear that we have

refrained from making any observation on merits of

the controversy having formed an opinion to remand

the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned

above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the

writ petition, uninfluenced by any of our observations,

strictly in accordance with law.

8

18) With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is

accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set

aside.

……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

………...................................J. [NAVIN SINHA]

New Delhi;

July 26, 2018

9