ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION CHENNAI Vs. M/S LASON INDIA PVT LTD CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is rather unfortunate that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation is before this Court challenging an order made by the 2nd Respondent Tribunal in A.T.A. No. 794(13)/2007 dated 13.4.2010.

(2.) The controversy raised herein revolves around a very narrow campus. While the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952 in paragraph 26 provided for employees to pay over and above the wage limit fixed as contribution, it is for the Provident Fund Department to receive the amount and keep it in the account of the said subscriber. In the present case, there is no controversy on the 1st Respondent, on the request of his employees, having deducted the amount offered by such employees and also remitted the said amount to the Petitioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation. But, after such amounts have been debited, the Petitioner had demanded administrative charges for attesting the said fund. When the 1st Respondent refused to comply with the request, the Petitioner passed an order purporting to be under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act on 26.11.2007. By the said order, the Petitioner demanded the 1st Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,31,047.70. When the amount was not forthcoming, they were also threatened with further coercive action including criminal prosecution. Aggrieved by the conduct of the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent filed an appeal under Section 7I of the Employees Provident Fund Act before the 2nd Respondent Tribunal. The 2nd Respondent Tribunal is a special judicial Tribunal created to go into any controversy arising out of an order passed under Section 7A or 7B of the Act. The 2nd Respondent Tribunal, who entertained the appeal as ATA No. 794(13)/ 2007 and after notice to the Petitioner, allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that there is no writing of consent by the employer to provide administrative charges for the amount collected from the employees over and above the wage limit fixed under the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any consent in writing, the plea of implied consent pleaded by the Petitioner organization will not stand scrutiny of law. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal dated13.4.2010, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr.K. Ramu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that for the reasons best known the 1st Respondent has not paid the administrative charges and disputed the said amount, which necessitated the Petitioner to pass an order under Section 7A of the Act.