Kishan G. Majithia vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated December 4, 1995 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 131/95(R) filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.652/95(R). In the said writ petition the appellant had challenged the order dated January 23, 1995 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi. Respondent 2 herein, in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relating to determination of the liability for provident fund in respect of the establishment of the appellant for the period December 1992 to February 1994. By the said order the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has determined the liability of the appellant in respect of provident fund dues for the said period. The case of the appellant is that the said determination has been made without any basis whatsoever and that the establishment of the appellant does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Patna High Court dated May 2, 1996 in LPA No. 138/95(R) wherein in relation to the period from January 1989 to November 1992 relating to the same establishment of the appellant, wherein the High Court has set aside a similar order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Act on the view that the order does not contain the basis on which the authority determined the strength of the workmen employed by the appellant. By the said judgment the High Court, after setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, has remitted the matter to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to pass a fresh order after hearing the appellant giving reasons for the conclusions reached by him particularly as regards employment of 100 workmen by the appellant. Since the said case relates to the earlier period from January 1989 to November 1992 and in the present case the determination has been made in respect of the period subsequent thereto from December 1992 to February 1994, the determination that will be made in respect of the earlier period in pursuance of the aforesaid directions given by the High Court is bound to have a bearing on the liability of the appellant for the subsequent period. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice that this matter should also be remitted to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for consideration along with the matter relating to the earlier period which is being considered by the said officer in pursuance of the order dated May 2, 1996 passed by the Patna High Court.

4. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated December 4, 1995 as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge and the order dated January 23,1995 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Act are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for consideration along with the matter relating to the earlier period which is under consideration before him in pursuance of the judgment of the Patna High Court dated May 2, 1996 in LPA No. 138/95(R). The writ petition filed by the appellant will stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.