SALIK Vs. REGIONAL P F COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Salik and 137 other ex-employees of the erstwhile U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. Churk Sonebhadra have filed the present writ petition collectively praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Regional Provident Commissioner-II, Varanasi and Official Liquidator to update their Provident Fund Accounts and pay the entire Provident Fund dues including pension. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioners contend that they are members of the Employees Provident Fund Trust created by the then management of the U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, which trust was approved by the Provident Fund Department. In this trust, the provident fund contribution was regularly being deducted from the salary of the petitioners. The Churk Unit of the U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. was wound up by an order of the Company Judge dated 08.12.1999, and the Official Liquidator was appointed as the liquidator of the Company. From time to time, the Company Judge has been passing various orders directing the Official Liquidator to provide the correct status of the Provident Fund Trust. The accounts of this trust are also being audited through an Auditor recommended by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It has been stated that accounts of this trust has now been transferred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi by the Secretary of the erstwhile Trust, and after the receipt of the audited accounts, some of the employees were paid their dues, but now the Provident Fund dues are not been released. It has been alleged that more than five years have passed and the provident fund accounts have not been updated nor the dues of the petitioners have been released. It has also been stated that the petitioners are entitled for pension under the provision of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and, in this regard, representations have been made to the Official Liquidator, which has remained pending. It is contended that neither the representation has been decided nor the pension is being released. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed by the 137 ex employees of the erstwhile U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. for a writ of mandamus against the respondents.

(2.) At the time of the presentation of the writ petition, the stamp reporter made an endorsement that there is a deficiency of court fee by Rs. 14,280/-. The petitioners made an objection below the report of the stamp reporter objecting to the levy of the court fee contending that the petitioners are the members of the Employees Provident Fund Trust and have a jural relationship and that the relief claimed by them in the writ petition is one and the same for all the petitioners, and consequently, a single writ petition for their joint cause of action was maintainable and one set of Court fee was payable in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, 1984 AIR(All) 46 as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Saroja Nand Jha and others Vs. M/s. Hari Fertilizers, Varanasi and others,1994 2 UPLBEC 1228 as well the decision of the learned Single Judge in Track Parts of India Mazdoor Sabha Vs. State of U.P. And others, 2005 AIR(All) 77.

(3.) The objection placed by the petitioner was duly considered by the Taxing Officer who by its order dated 09th April, 2013 rejected the contention of the petitioner and upheld the deficiency of court fee as reported by the stamp reporter. The Taxing Officer held that each of the petitioner has an independent and separate cause of action and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mota Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1981 AIR(SC) 484 all the petitioners are liable to pay separate court fee, and consequently, directed the petitioners to make good the deficiency of court fee. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Taxing Officer, has preferred a separate application dated 11.04.2013 in the present writ petition objecting to the order of the Taxing Officer and praying that the order the Taxing Officer and the report of the stamp reporter be set aside and the writ petition be held to be maintainable on payment of one set of Court fee.