APEX ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties Rule D.B. Counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that no reference could be made by the petitioner to the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, and as such the order of the Central Government was without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed by him on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund v. Glamour-'Proprietor Seth Hassaram and Sons {India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, and others, reported in 1982 L.IC. 1787. The Division Bench of this Court relied on an earlier Division Bench decision in Cr. R. 116 of 1974. in Ram Shankar v. Provident Fund Inspector, decided on 13th September, 1976, wherein it was held that Section 19-A of the Ac' could only be invoked by the Commissioner and that the employer cannot invoke it in a case like the present where the Commissioner is not having any difficulty in implementing the Act. A perusal of Section 19-A would also show that when a difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, Section 19-A can be invoked. From the laguage employed in Section 19-A, it would appear that if the authorities who are empowered under the Act to give effect to the provisions of the Act or if any doubt arises, with regard to the matters stated in Section 19-A, then the matter can bereferred by the authorities having powers to give effect to the provisions of the Act to approach the Central Government, Section 19-A, in our opinion, is not intended to be a provision for preferring any appeal before the Central Government. It is only when any difficulty arises while giving effect to the provisions in respect to matters enumerated in Section 19-A that the authorities can invoke the powers of the Central Government.

(2.) Thus, there are no reasons to difer with the earlier two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, and as such the impugned order is set aside on this ground alone that the reference to the Central Government was not maintainable under Sec. 19-A of the Act. As the relief is primarily in relation to the impguned order of the Centeral Government, so it is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter. As regrads relief (e), it would be open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in connection with seeking the declaration as mentioned in clause (e) of the prayer clause.

(3.) This writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed and the impugned order of the Central Government dated 11th September, 1989 is quashed and set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.