BARBATI GAS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order dated August 31, 1999 passed by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner on behalf of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Annexure -2 by which he has recalled his earlier speaking order communicated vide letter dated June 9, 1999.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that on July 31, 1995 the opposite party issued a notice against the petitioner for the purpose of inquiry under Section 7 -A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Since the inquiry could not be concluded within two years, the case was transferred to the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, who, after inquiry and verification of documents, passed the speaking order on August 1, 1998, which was ratified by the Regional Provident Commissioner. On June 9, 1999, said speaking order was communicated to the petitioner. On August 31, 1999, the petitioner received a letter from the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner intimating that the speaking order communicated vide letter dated June 9, 1999 was recalled. In the said letter, it was further directed that the petitioner should appear before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner E & R on September 16, 1999 with relevant documents and papers in connection with applicability of the Act. Against that order, the petitioner has preferred this writ application.

(3.) MR . Jena, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parity vehemently contended that the writ application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, who issued the letter (Annexure -2 is not a party before this Court. He further contended that during the relevant period, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner who passed the so -called speaking order was not vested with the power to hear disputes concerning an establishment under Section 1(3) of the Act. It is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Enforcement & Recovery, who was empowered by the Central Office Circular to decide such disputes. Unfortunately, the dispute of the petitioner -establishment was heard and decided by an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, who had no jurisdiction at the relevant time. Subsequently, the irregularity came to the notice of the appropriate authority, and as it was a void order, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement & Recovery) recalled the order passed under Section 7 -A by his order dated June 9, 1999 and directed for fresh hearing. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the Commissioner. Lastly, he submitted that the authorities have power to recall or review their own orders.