RANCHI GOUSHALA Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 08.04.2002 (Annexure-9) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jharkhand, Ranchi as according to the petitioner, petitioner has been brought under the purview of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 without deciding the applicability of the Act as required under Section 7A of the Act in question. Although, on previous occasion such an order dated 5th February 1994 was issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the same was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 21.07.2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 559 of 1994(R) reported in 2003 Vol. 3 JLJR 556 and the matter was remanded back to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. This Court, by remanding the matter, observed that this order shall not stand in the way of the respondents to proceed in accordance with law if there is any report to suggest that the petitioner is a manufacturer.

(2.) FROM the impugned order dated 08.04.2002 (Annexure-9), it appears that the order has been passed on the basis of instruction/guidance issued by the Head Office, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi on reference vide letter no. C.I./3(46)01/BR/1998 dated 26.03.2002 whereafter it has been held in the impugned letter that the establishment has been rightly covered under the schedule head "Milk and Milk Product". The petitioner has, therefore, been asked to comply with the requirement with effect from 01.04.1991 in respect of Code No. BR/6791. Although, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-EPFO, but it appears that the impugned letter has been issued without following the procedure as required under Section 7A of the Act, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the impugned order suffers from failure to follow the mandate of law as quoted hereinabove and has straightway adjudged the applicability of the Act of the petitioner holding it to be an establishment covered under the schedule under the head of "Milk and Milk Product" although the contention has been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner on merit that the petitioner has only a Goushala where no manufacturing activity in the nature of factory or manufacture process is being undertaken giving rise to new product. This Court refrain from expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. In that view of the matter, the issue is remanded back to the Competent Authority under the Employment Provident Fund Organisation for taking a decision afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law in terms of Section 7A of the Act, 1952. The petitioner shall co-operate in the said proceeding and it is expected that the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the receipt/production of a copy of this order.