OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful appellant is aggrieved by the decision of a learned Single Judge, dismissing its writ petition. In those proceedings, the appellant (hereafter "employer") had challenged an order dated 13.04.2010 issued by the second respondent (hereafter "PFC") assessing its liabilities for the sum of Rs. 43,38,921/ - as provident fund contribution towards 43 employees for the period from October, 1999 to January, 2004. The appeal to the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal [hereafter "the Tribunal"] by the present appellant too was dismissed.

(2.) THE dispute in this case stemmed from the employer's order transferring en masse, 43 employees at the Mumbai Unit, to its Punjab Unit. The employees did not report; but instead filed a petition before the (Industrial) Court, Mumbai. During the pendency of that dispute a full and final settlement was arrived at between the appellant and the employees, through their Union, which was also signed by the employees individually. The settlement arrived at clearly stated that no further amounts were payable by the employer to the employees. However, the fourth respondent complained to the PFC alleging that the employer did not deduct the provident fund and pension fund though it was mandatory and thus, the employees had not received the provident fund and pension fund. On this complaint, notices were issued on 11.12.2008 and an inquiry was conducted. This culminated in the PFC's order, adjudging the appellant's liability. The appellant was not successful in its plea before the Tribunal and approached this Court, in writ proceedings. The impugned judgment dismissed the said writ petition.

(3.) THE appellant had argued, before the learned Single Judge, that adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend itself had not been provided by the PFC which vitiated his order. It was argued, secondly that the workers had accepted a lump sum settlement and consequently could not resile from its terms and demand extra payments based on provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereafter "the Act"). The learned Single Judge turned down each of these contentions.