KRISHNA BUS SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above detailed four matters, being pertaining to the same very employer, filed by different employees regarding a civil suit filed for declaration regarding violation of deposit of employer's share of Provident Fund and not deducting the same from the salary of the employees, has been challenged being malafide, arbitrary and against the provisions of Provident Fund Scheme. The suits were initiated and were pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar when the employer (now petitioner in these revision petitions) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India earlier before Trial Court had moved application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for rejection of the plaint in each suit, and which stood dismissed by the said Court vide impugned orders (dtd. 6/1/2020 in Ved Parkash's case; dtd. 20/9/2019 in Ajay Kumar Sardana's and Jagjeet Singh's cases; and order dtd. 14/12/2018 in the case of Balraj). Thus, on account of common question of law and facts having been involved, all the present four revision petitions are being taken up together for disposal.

(2.) In the application, the employer had alleged that the then plaintiff employees mischievously and with a clever intent had filed a case in a Court in Hisar which did not have the jurisdiction and rather it was the Courts at New Delhi which had the jurisdiction and therefore, sought return of the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

(3.) Though the plaintiffs opposed stoutly the averments made in the application and claimed that the principal office of the employer was situated at Hisar and therefore, the Courts at Hisar had the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present matter. The Employees' Provident Fund Organization in its reply had tried to support the employer by claiming that the account of the plaintiffs was opened at Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and therefore, it was the Courts at Delhi which had the jurisdiction. In the light of this claim and counter-claim, present revision petitions have come about.