ST. BARNABAS HOSPITAL Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 27.11.2003 and 31.03.2004 passed by the respondent No.1 under Sections 7-A and 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') whereby, the petitioner has been imposed provident fund liabilities even in respect of the professional doctors of RIMS, Ranchi (Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences) and the nursing students, who were imparting nursing course in the petitioner's hospital. The petitioner has also challenged the notice of demand dated 17.05.2004, issued by the respondent No.2, in pursuance of the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent No.1.

(3.) Mr. Satish Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, while confining his arguments on the procedure adopted by the respondent No.1 in passing the order dated 31.02004 in exercise of review jurisdiction under Sec. 7-B of the said Act, submits that the reviewing authority did no issue any notice to the petitioner in pursuance of the review petition filed by it for reviewing the order dated 27.11.2003 under Sec. 7-A of the said Act. Learned counsel referred to the review petition filed by the petitioner on 18.12.2003 before the respondent No.1 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and submits that various factual aspects apparent on record were intended to be brought to the notice of the respondent No.1 for reviewing the order dated 27.11.2003 including the fact that in the order passed under Sec. 7-A of the said Act, considerable financial liabilities were fastened upon the petitioner even in respect of the visiting doctors of the RIMS, nursing students etc. and for the said factual clarification, the petitioner was ready to offer its records maintained in the hospital for inspection, however, the respondent No.1 while exercising the jurisdiction under Sec. 7-B of the said Act and while passing the order dated 31.02004, completely misconstrued the contentions raised in the review petition and proceeded to pass the said order on the presumption as if one Ms. Ratna Sarkar, Office Assistant under the petitioner, had no authority to represent the matter on behalf of the petitioner before the original authority while passing order under Sec. 7-A of the said Act. The said aspect was misconstrued mainly due to the reason that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to represent its case in the review proceeding under Sec. 7-B of the said Act.