MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the Maharashtra Gramin Bank seeks a direction against the provident fund authorities to refund the employers provident fund contribution, paid in excess, with interest @ 18 % per annum. The petitioner has challenged the communications of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner rejecting the request of the petitioner for refund of the amount.

(2.) Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus:

(3.) Shri Bhangde, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner - bank submitted that as per the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2751/2003, the provident fund authorities were restrained from disbursing the excess amount that was paid by the bank towards the employers contribution. It is submitted that by the interim order dated 10th February, 2004, the provident fund authorities were restrained from disbursing the part of the amount of contribution of the petitioner bank that was paid over and above the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2(f) of the Statutory Scheme. It is submitted that though the C.G.I.T. had held that the action on the part of the petitioner - bank of reducing the rate of contribution towards the provident fund was not just and the workmen - employees would continue to draw the benefit of getting equal contribution towards the provident fund from the bank as per its existing practice, the award of the Tribunal was set aside by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had not only set aside the award of the Tribunal but had also quashed and set aside the order of the Central Government referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal dated 20/07/2001, as also the communications of the provident fund authorities asking the petitioner - bank to continue paying higher contribution without any ceiling. It is submitted that the declaration granted by the learned Single Judge that the bar of Section 12 of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act would not operate and that the notice of change was legal would relate back to the date of issuance of the notice of change, dated 26/09/1998. The learned counsel relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 147 and (1972) 3 SCC 684 to substantiate his submission. It is submitted that a Court would generally adjudicate upon the antecedent rights of the parties. It is submitted that when a Court decides that a particular interpretation given to a particular provision earlier was not legal, it declares the law as it stood from the beginning, as per its decision. It is submitted that by the interim order of the learned Single Judge, the provident fund authorities were restrained from disbursing the excess contribution made by the petitioner - bank to the employees and the said restrainment order clearly shows that the Court desired that the amount paid by the petitioner - bank towards its contribution, if found to be in excess should be returned to the petitioner - bank in case it succeeds. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the counsel for the employees on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court 879 for denying the relief to the petitioner is ill-founded as in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only required to consider whether in the circumstances of that case, the employer was guilty of altering the conditions of service of the employees on the basis of the notice of change during the pendency of the proceedings. It is submitted that the law laid down in the said Judgment cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.