MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD ESTABLISHED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :-

(2.) Short facts giving rise to the present petition are that one complaint has been filed to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur (for brevity, the 'RPFC') on 15/9/2006 (Annexure-A/2). On the said complaint, notices have been issued on 24/4/2007. The petitioner had submitted objection in response to the notice on 25/6/2007. The RPFC passed an order holding that the EPF is applicable vide order dtd. 21/7/2010. Again objections were submitted vide objection dtd. 17/8/2010 in regard to the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'EPF Act'). Simultaneously, a review petition was filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dtd. 21/7/2010 passed by the RPFC. The said review petition was dismissed vide order dtd. 10/9/2010. Again, second review application was filed against the order dtd. 21/7/2010 which also came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 7/10/2010. Thereafter, appeal has been filed against the order passed in the review on 7/10/2010. The Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the RPFC with a direction to decide the second review application on its own merits. Same was decided vide order dtd. 3/10/2016. Thereafter, on 24/4/2019, the RPFC has passed the final order assessing the dues of 107 employees of the petitioner's establishment to be paid by the petitioner. When such amount has not been deposited with the respondent no.1, the accounts of the petitioner's establishment were freezed vide order dtd. 13/6/2019. Being aggrieved by the action of the authority of freezing the accounts, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.16572/2019. This Court, vide order dtd. 19/8/2019, quashed the order dtd. 13/6/2019 of freezing of the accounts of the petitioner and gave liberty to the petitioner to assail the original order of the respondent no.1 whereby, the order under Sec. 7-A of the EPF Act has been passed. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred under Sec. 7(I) of the Act of 1952 before the CGIT. The CGIT, vide order dtd. 15/6/2022, has dismissed the appeal holding that the original order dtd. 30/9/2016/3/10/2016 by which the authority has made the EPF Act applicable upon the petitioner has not been challenged within the period of limitation and it has attained finality between the parties and thus, for question in regard to the applicability, it has been held that in absence of challenge of original order which attained finality, it is applicable and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

(3.) It has been contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the CGIT has wrongly held that the order dtd. 30/9/2016/3/10/2016 has not been challenged and has attained finality because such order got merged with the final order passed by the authority assessing the amount of payment under the EPF Act. It is submitted that the said order of initiation of proceedings against the EPF Act under Sec. 7-A was passed vide order dtd. 21/7/2010 (Annexure-P/1). Thereafter, several reviews have been filed and on rejection of the review applications, the appeal was preferred before the EPF Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide order dtd. 10/6/2014, remanded back the matter to the RPFC to decide the review on its own merits. The same was decided vide order dtd. 3/10/2016 (Annexure P-5)/(Annexure A-9 to the appeal). The said order was passed in the review filed by the petitioner by Appellate Authority vide order dtd. 10/6/2014 by remanding the matter. Thereafter, the authority has passed the final order dtd. 24/4/2019 (Annexure- P/6). The said order was again challenged before the CGIT in an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed by impugned order dtd. 15/6/2022. It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed on 3/10/2016 got merged in the order dtd. 24/4/2019 and therefore, when the appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 24/4/2019, the Appellate Authority ought to have seen the applicability of the Act on merits but as the CGIT held that once the order dtd. 3/10/2016 has attained finality and no challenge was made against the said order, the applicability of the Act has been upheld as passed by the authority vide order dtd. 3/10/2016. It is submitted that CGIT has committed error of law in holding that both the orders are independent to each other and once the earlier order has attained finality, the question of applicability cannot be raised against the final order.