ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They are aggrieved by the orders dtd. 18/7/2018 and 19/12/2018 passed by respondent No.1 under Sec. 8F of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. They also challenge the notices issued from time to time, particularly the notice dtd. 28/11/2018, by which the petitioner was wrongly declared as a defaulter under Sec. 8F(3)(x) of the said Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are thus. From the year 2016, respondent No.2 invested the provident fund contributions of its employees with petitioner No.1 by opening a fixed deposit account which did not permit premature closure. Before making such investment, respondent No.2 was expressly informed by an email dtd. 1/10/2016 that the fixed deposit would not carry any facility of premature withdrawal.

(3.) On 11/4/2018, respondent No.1 issued a letter to respondent No.2 stating that the exemption earlier granted under the said Act stood cancelled. Respondent No.2 was directed to comply with the provisions of the Act as an unexempted establishment with effect from April 2018. Thereafter, on 13/7/2018 and 15/7/2018, respondent No.2 was again informed that as per the agreed terms, no interest would be payable in case of premature closure of the fixed deposit.