ABHIJAT SAMAYADARSHIKA MAHARASHTRA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case demonstrates how at times the public authority enjoined with a duty of protecting the public interest itself commits default and penalises the person who is not at fault at all. We are saying this because the facts of this case show that the authority who passed the order has shown total lack of application of mind while dealing with the matter.

(2.) ABHIJAT Samayadarshika (Maharashtra) Limited, is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is wholly owned subsidiary of the Western Maharashtra development Corporation limited. The petitioner company was established on 12th July 1978 and it commenced its commercial production from 30th August 1979. Under the provisions of section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the company was entitled to infancy benefit and accordingly the provisions of the Act became applicable to the petitioner company from 1. 9. 1982. The petitioner company immediately contacted the Inspector incharge of the area were the company's establishment was situated. The inspector concerned advised the petitioner company to submit details in a questionnaire form and apply for code number and also to start deducting employees as well as employers contributions. By letter dated 15. 9. 1982, the company submitted the requisite questionnaire containing all the detail about the petitioners' establishment. The petitioner company also started deducting employees as well as employers contribution. However, as no code number was allotted the petitioner company discussed the matter with one Mr. A. Hamsa, Inspector concerned, on phone and under his advise the amount of contribution was deposited in the current account. It is relevant to notice that the said fact is amply corroborated by letter dated 5th october 1982 sent by the Company to the said Shri Hamsa, copy of which is annexed to this petition at Exh. C. The said letter expressly requested the said gentleman to give Provident Fund account Number. The petitioner continued to deduct the contribution and deposited the same in the current account under intimation to the Provident Fund Inspector. By letter dated 15. 2. 1982 the petitioner company again requested for allotment of code number and they further sought instruction as to where the accumulated amount of contributions be transferred. As no come number was intimated to the petitioner company and as no instructions were coming for the from the office of the provident Fund Commissioner as to where the amount should be transferred or deposited, the petitioner company by its letter dated 11. 6. 1983 addressed to the Regional provident Fund Commissioner informed that the company has been implementing the provisions of the Act and the amount of contribution was lying with the petitioner only for want of provident fund come number or directions as to where it should be deposited. By that letter the petitioners once again requested for furnishing information and for issuance of code number.

(3.) AS even after the above letters the petitioner did not receive any communication, the petitioner company on 8. 9. 1983 opened a separate bank account specially for depositing employees and employers contributions, which the petitioner company had been deducting. By a letter dated 19th July 1983 the petitioner company again requested the provident Fund commissioner for allotment of code number. By further letter dated 1. 9. 1983, and 8. 10. 1983 the petitioner once again requested for allotment of code number so that the amount accumulated and kept separately in the bank account could be deposited with the office of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner. For the first time the petitioner received a reply from the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by letter dated 22nd October 1983 in response to their letter dated 8th October 1983. By the said letter the office of the Regional Provident Fund commissioner sent back the letter dated 8th October 1983 with remark that the code number was not mentioned in the said letter and, therefore the petitioner should re-submit the said letter with code number. It is really beyond our understanding how the office of the Provident Fund commissioner can insist on the petitioner for giving code number when the petitioner by writing several letters, had been almost begging of the Provident Fund Commissioner to give code number and the Provident Fund Commissioner had kept silent for number of months. The petitioner therefore by its letter dated 17th November 1983 pointed out to the office of the provident Fund Commissioner that for the last more than 12 months petitioner had been requesting for allotment of code number which was not issued by the office of the Provident fund Commissioner and therefore petitioner could not quote the code number. The petitioner continued to implement the provisions of the said Act by depositing the amount of contribution of the employees as well as employers in the separate bank account specifically opened for the said purpose. The petitioner thereafter by its letter dated 1st December 1983, 10th April 1984, 7th July 1984, 13th August 1984, 19th August 1984, 13th September 1984, 13th October 1984 and 26th October 1984 requested for allotment of code number. In all the letters the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had been lawfully implementing the provisions of the said Act and the amount of contributions had been deposited in a separate bank account.