- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Gujarat High Court Restrains...
Gujarat High Court Restrains Recovery Under Employee's Provident Fund Act Citing Non-Availability Of Industrial Tribunal To Hear Appeals
PRIYANKA PREET
22 April 2022 5:10 AM GMT
The Gujarat High Court has restrained the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from initiating recovery proceedings against an employer under Section 8(B) and 8(G) of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952, citing non availability of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav stated that in the absence of a...
The Gujarat High Court has restrained the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from initiating recovery proceedings against an employer under Section 8(B) and 8(G) of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952, citing non availability of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav stated that in the absence of a Presiding Officer at the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the employer against recovery order could not be heard.
"It is clarified that till the appeal of the petitioner (employer) is heard on merits, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner," it ordered.
It was averred by the Petitioners that in the absence of the Presiding Officer before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad, the appeal of the Petitioner was not being heard. Therefore, if the Respondent proceeded with initiating recoveries under Section 8B and 8G, the appeal of the Petitioner would be rendered infructuous.
Reliance was placed on a Notification of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India in 2018 where the Ministry opined, "if coercive steps are taken against the employers in absence of any Presiding Officer who are not in a position to hear appeals, it would cause undue hardship to the appellant." Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Tasty Nut Industries vs. Union of India in this context.
Per contra, the Department relied on Employees Provident Fund Organization vs. Rollwell Forge Ltd & anr, 2011 SCC online Guj 2846 wherein an observation was made that there was no provision which restrained authorities from taking any action for recovery after the statutory period of filing the appeal has expired. It was further contested that no relief has been obtained from the Appellate authority yet and therefore authorities could not be precluded from proceeding in initiating recovery.
The Petitioner responded that when the aforesaid order was passed by the High Court, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was manned by a Presiding Officer.
Taking note of the Notification of the Ministry and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Tasty Nut case, the Bench opined that the Respondent should be curtailed lest it should cause hardship to the Petitioner in the absence of the Presiding Officer in the Tribunal. It was further explained that the Court had not examined the case on merits and since the Appellate Tribunal was not available on a regular basis, the matter should be disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
Case Title: SARDAR PATEL SEVA TRUST Versus THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II
Case No.: C/SCA/6511/2022
