DELTA LTD Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Background: The hearing on the application was concluded and the matter was directed to be placed for orders. The matter appeared for prders today. While addressing the Court on the application for interim order, both the learned counsel had addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal. Therefore, we treat the appeal by consent of the parties as on the day's ist for hearing and dispose of the same as lereafter.

(2.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated November 25, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1874 of 2004 dismissing the writ petition. The writ petitioner/appellant was granted exemption by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 since replaced by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. On the ground of certain default, a notice was issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner asking the petitioner to show cause why the exemption so granted shall not be ecommended to be withdrawn in terms of section 17(4) of the 1952 Act. This notice was challenged in the writ petition on the ground hat this was beyond the jurisdiction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Appellants' Contention:

(3.) Mr. Deb, appearing on behalf of the appellant, pointed out that it is only the appropriate Government as defined in section 2(a) of the 1952 Act can do so. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can exercise only the jurisdiction limited by reason of Section 17(1-A) of the said Act inasmuch as only those provided in Sections 6, 7-A, 8 and 14-B. The authority to cancel the exemption granted is conferred on the authority, which granted such exemption as is contemplated under Section 17(4). The authority to grant exemption is vested in the appropriate Government under Section 17(1). Therefore, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner not being the appropriate Government cannot assume jurisdiction even to recommend the cancellation in the purported exercise of power conferred upon it under Section 17(1-A). He referred to the relevant provision of the 1952 Act in order to elaborate his submission and contended that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can exercise any of the powers conferred upon it under Section 17(1-A), which is specific. Such jurisdiction cannot be stretched beyond the confines provided in sub-section (1-A) of Section 17. Respondents' Contention: