BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the EPF Act"). The petitioner's specific contention is that the very question raised in Ext. P4 was already considered by Ext. P3 order. A notice was issued under Section 7A as indicated in Ext. P2 and after consideration of the case, an order was passed by Ext. P3 specifically finding that the trainees/apprentices appointed under the Standing Orders of the establishment are not required or entitled to become members of the EPF fund. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Ext. P4 is issued on the very same set of facts, against the very same industrial establishment, for the very same period.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, specifically pointed out Section 7B of the EPF Act to contend that there could be a review of orders passed under Section 7A and the proviso also confers suo motu powers on the officer, to so review an order. The learned counsel also submitted that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner who passed the order, could not have passed the order, since the jurisdiction is conferred on the Commissioner as per the administrative instructions, such administrative orders clearly indicate that in the case of any establishment having more than 250 employees enquiry should be conducted under Section 7A only by Commissioners of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.

(3.) The learned counsel also emphasise the manner in which earlier proceedings were concluded, to show that, that alone would make a good and sufficient ground for review. A notice was issued by Ext. P2 on 24.12.2004, summoning the petitioner for an enquiry, under Section 7A of the Act, and the date fixed for appearance was three days later, on 27.12.2012. On 27.12.2012 itself, the petitioner is said to have appeared before the authority and the authority has concluded the proceedings and issued Ext. P3 order on the very same day. The counter affidavit of the respondents also show that the matter has since been referred to the Vigilance department and proceedings are pending against the officer, who is said to have retired, four days after the passing of the order, on 31.12.2012.