CHANDRA SHEKHAR AZAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER -II KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Chandra Shekhar Azad University Of Agriculture And Technology, Nawabganj, Kanpur, represented through its Vice Chancellor, have challenged an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Kanpur, dated 08.02.2018, under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) and various statutory schemes framed thereunder, assessing a sum of Rs.9,76,94,899/- to be payable by the petitioners to their employees - casual hands and contractual employees. A further order, that has been challenged by the petitioners is one passed by the same Authority on an application for review made under Section 7-B of the Act, which has come to be rejected by an order dated 12.04.2018. Treating the second order to be a sequel to the first part of the same cause of action, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed.

(2.) This writ petition was filed against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Kanpur and the Employees Provident Fund Organization through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Kanpur. The beneficiaries of the two orders of assessment and review under the Act passed by respondent no.1, who are a total of 641 employees, have not been impleaded to the writ petition, or even a representative number of them. This Court vide order dated 21.04.2019 required the respondents to the writ petition to file a counter affidavit within four weeks with a direction that the assessed sum of Provident Fund and other dues, that had been deposited by the petitioners may be invested in an interest bearing term deposit with a Nationalized Bank to abide by final orders in the writ petition. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents was filed on 2nd April, 2019. The petitioners were granted three weeks' time to file a rejoinder affidavit, vide order dated 01.04.2019. However, no rejoinder affidavit was filed on 30.04.2019, 20.05.2019, or until 21.05.2.2019, which were the various dates fixed in the matter before the Court. On 21.05.2019, the writ petition was heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for all parties, and judgment was reserved. At this stage, it may be mentioned that of all the 641 employees who are beneficiaries of the two orders passed by the respondent no.1, under challenge in this petition, some filed an impleadment application on 18th May, 20199, which is an application on behalf of 111 of the 641 beneficiary employees. The said employees supported their application for impleadment with a detailed affidavit and documents, on which they wish to rely before this Court. The said impleadment application filed by Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the 111 employees, would be a representation of all the 641 beneficiary employees, in whose favour, orders under challenge in this petition have been passed. The aforesaid application numbered as Civil Misc. (Impleadment) Application No.4 of 2019 was also taken on record for orders at the time of hearing of the writ petition. In order to curtail prolixity of procedure, no orders granting formal impleadment were made on the said application. However, Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, learned Advocate, on behalf of the 111 employees, was heard fully in support of the applicants' case as proper parties, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXII, Rule 5-A of the Rules of Court. Sri Tripathi consented also to the aforesaid course of action, and addressed the Court on merits.

(3.) Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the beneficiary employees, under Chapter XXII, Rule 5-A of the Rules of Court.