SDB CISCO INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and the letter bearing reference No. C4/TN/CNI/7919/Exem/Regl. Dated 24.08.2001 on the file of the third respondent communicating the decision of the first respondent not to grant exemption to the petitioner establishment and to quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to grant exemption to the petitioner establishment under Section 17(1)(a) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition is that the petitioner is running security agency throughout the country. It is a very big organisation having branches all over the country. The provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act is applicable to them. As per Section 17(1)(a) of the Employees Provident Act, this organisation can apply for exemption from the Government. The petitioner by its letter dated 19.12.1991 applied to the third respondent for relaxation of the provisions of the scheme. Pending disposal of the said application, the third respondent in its reply dated 03.01.1992 granted relaxation from the provisions of the Employee Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, subject to the condition stipulated in the order. Thereafter, all the employees of the petitioner have been covered only under the Provident Fund maintained by the petitioner which are in no way less favourable than what is provided in the scheme. The third respondent by letter dated 1.1.1996 addressed to the second respondent informed that the petitioner establishment has complied with the provisions of the relaxation satisfactorily and requested the second respondent to arrange for issuance of notification for granting exemption under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act. While so, suddenly, the petitioner received the impugned letter dated 24.08.2001 from the third respondent informing that the first respondent has decided not to grant exemption to the petitioner exemption. The claim of the petitioner was rejected and the order passed by the Government of India was not even communicated to the petitioner. Further, this order dated 24.08.2001 is a non-speaking order. The authorities have to exercise their powers conferred under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act in a judicious manner; the order is a quasi-judicial one since the order does not disclose any reason, it is invalid.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated to the effect that the request of the petitioner was communicated to the Head Office. Thereafter it was found that the petitioner company was called upon to explain the reasons for having not maintained the pattern of investment prescribed by the Government. The establishment in its letter dated 20.08.1996 accepted the facts of not maintaining the pattern, stating certain reasons for the default and assured of complying the same from the next year onwards. Subsequently it was noticed that the prescribed pattern of investment was not adhered to by the Trust during the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 and the facts had been reported to the Head Office by the Regional Office, Chennai by letter dated 12.10.1998. Thereafter, the Head Office, after considering all these aspects, by letter dated 24.02.1999 informed that the proposal for grant of exemption under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Government of India. The Government of India had not granted exemption. Therefore, the Head Office directed the Regional Office at Chennai to ensure that the establishment continues to comply with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 as an un-exempted establishment. In turn, the Regional Office instructed the establishment to comply as an un-exempted establishment with effect from 01.09.2001.