HOTEL SAGAR Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's request for an opportunity for cross-examining the enforcement officer through physical mode rather than through virtual mode and for the physical mode of hearing was declined by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in proceedings under Sec. 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the EPF Act).

(2.) Petitioner contends that cross-examining the enforcement officer through virtual mode is practically ineffective and would not serve the purpose, especially in the light of the voluminous nature of information and materials to be confronted with in the instant case, and will practically amount to infringing his rights under the principles of natural justice. It was argued that this was a fit case to permit a physical mode of crossexamination and hearing.

(3.) In the statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it is pleaded that the issue arises under Sec. 7-A of the Act pursuant to an order of remand from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. It was further averred that petitioner's request to have a physical mode of cross-examination and hearing was denied, based upon the directions issued by the head office of the Employees Provident Fund Department, which directed the conduct of cases through virtual hearing and by video conferencing. It was stated therein that for the last more than one year, due to Covid-19 protocol and restrictions, all courts and quasi-judicial authorities have been following virtual hearing and since new rules have been framed for virtual hearing and examination of witnesses, the order declining the request of the petitioner based upon Annexure R(A) Circular dtd. 1/10/2020, does not warrant any interference.