IMAMBHAI GULAMHUSEIN SHAIKH Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the relationship of employer and employee cease when an employer stops his business or does it cease only when it is terminated in accordance with law? If this question had been posed by the competent authority the petitioner would not have been obliged to approach this Court. Assurance benefit was claimed by the petitioner in his capacity as a nominee of an employee of a Mill Company who died on 11/09/1977 in the context of the benefit claimable under the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme of 1976. The application was rejected by the Accounts Officer of the Employees Provident Funds Gujarat State Ahmedabad by his communication dated 19/10/1959 as per Annexure E. It appears that the Accounts Officer has rejected the claim by reason of the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent No. 1 herein). The petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The following facts are not in dispute:

(3.) A few observations regarding the working in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner are called for having regard to the facts revealed by the present petition. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has passed a one line order rejecting the application of the petitioner without examining the matter in depth without holding any inquiry and without considering the question with the seriousness that it deserves. It ought to have been realised that the claim was being made by a nominee of a deceased workman and by the very nature of things he could not be expected to incur legal expenditure in order to secure his claim. Such matters are required to be dealt with sympathe- tically and in the right spirit that is to say informed with a desire to be helpful. There should not be an anxiety to reject without a close scrutiny and drive the applicant to seek relief in a Court of law. If the Depart- ment were to function in this manner the whole object of the benevolent legislation would be defeated. Rejecting the application is the last thing that the competent authority would be expected to do and not the first thing on the slightest pretext. Before rejecting the claim the competent authority would be required to afford an opportunity to the applicant in regard to any aspect which in the opinion of the competent authority creates a hurdle in the way of the applicant who is entitled to the amount standing at the credit of the deceased workman. If necessary the com- petent authority could also seek legal advice in order to re-assure himself. But in any case he must not be in a haste to reject the applica- tion as has been done in the present case without holding any inquiry and without examining the matter closely and carefully.