RAMCHANDRA Vs. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner were the employees of respondent No. 3 (The Rajkumar Mills Ltd.) and were covered by the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. They retired from the service on 4th March, 1986, 17th August 1992 and 1st May, 1994 respectively. The respondents No. 1 and 2 did not make full payment of Provident Fund to the petitioners despite notice dated 4.6.94 (Annex. A) as result of which the petitioners have approached this Court in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ against the respondents No. 1 and 2 for payment of the balance amount of the Provident Fund. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the return in oppugnation. I have heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 are under legal obligation to pay the petitioners the entire amount due to them including employers contribution irrespective of the position whether the amount could or could not be realised from the respondent No. 3 (employer). The counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 1.9.94 passed by this Court in M.P. No. 624/92 (Prabhudayal v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner). The counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that the respondents did their best to realise the amount and initiated action about prosecution of the employer and on such acts, the respondents should be held to be immune from payment of liability of the amount of the Provident Fund. He also submitted that the petitioner No. 3 has not even applied for payment of Provident Fund. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the matter stands concluded by the order of this Court passed in M.P. No. 624/92. In view of the aforesaid order, no fresh point is involved for adjudication in this writ petition.

(3.) THE petition is, thus, allowed in terms indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs of this petition as incurred.