Partly allowed

M/S Saarc Construction Company v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Allahabad HC23 May 2022WRIC/12465/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that a review application under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 cannot be rejected without affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing. The order rejecting the review without notice was set aside and remanded to the Regional PF Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 22.03.2022 by Regional PF Commissioner-II, Varanasi set aside; matter remitted to pass fresh order after issuing prior notice to petitioner.

M/S Saarc Construction Company Vs Assistant… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12465 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Saarc Construction Company Respondent :- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- Sachindra Upadhyay,Satyajit Mukerji

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyajeet Mukharjee, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

Solitary grievance of the petitioner is that, he was not heard even on a minimum basis before his review application, filed under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1952) came to be rejected.

¶8

Relevant to the issue, earlier the respondent had passed an order under Section 7(A) of the Act, dated 03.11.2021.

¶9

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application seeking review under Section 7(A) of the Act on 10.12.2021.

¶10

Undisputedly, the above application has been rejected by order dated 22.03.2022 without fixing any date for hearing to the petitioner. Thus, infringement of rule of natural justice has been claimed.

¶11

On the other side, Sri Satyajeet Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that requirement of an opportunity of hearing would attach only in the event, the authority proposed to pass any order to allow the application to any extent. Reference has been made to sub-Section 3 of

¶12

Section 7-B of the Act.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that petitioner has been wrongly deprived of an opportunity of hearing. Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 reads as under;-

¶14

"7B. Review of orders passed under section 7A.

¶15

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) of section 7A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order to the Officer who passed the order:

¶16

Provided that such officer may also on his own motion review his order if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any such ground.

¶17

(2) Every application for review under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and within such time as may be specified in the Scheme.

¶18

(3) Where it appears to the officer receiving an application for review that there is no sufficient ground for a review, he shall reject the application.

¶19

(4) Where the officer is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, he shall grant the same:

¶20

Provided that,—

¶21

(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to all the parties before him to enable them to appear and be heard in support of the order in respect of which a review is applied for, and

¶22

(b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made, without proof of such allegation.

¶23

(5) No appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an application for review, but an appeal under this Act shall lie against an order passed under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by him under section 7A".

¶24

In the first place, sub-Section 1 does not deny opportunity of hearing to be given. Sub-Section 3 only provides that a review application may be rejected ex parte i.e. without issuance of any

¶25

notice to the opposite party. No other intent can be drawn from the plain reading of the said sub-Section. However, that contingency may arise only upon hearing the party seeking the review.

¶26

It may not be forgotten, the respondent is a quasi-judicial authority, who may only benefit from limited hearing that may be granted on such applications. Often facts and law become clear only upon hearing.

¶27

Insofar as the review application has been rejected without hearing the petitioner, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or for calling a counter affidavit, at this stage.

¶28

Accordingly, order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Regional P.F. Commissinoer-II, Varanasi is set aside.

¶29

Matter remitted to pass a fresh order after issuing prior notice to the petitioner of the date of hearing.

¶30

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off.

¶31

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Ashutosh

¶32

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH SINGH Date: 2022.05.27 09:37:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Saarc Construction Company v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Saarc Construction Company v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Vs Navneet Bansal and 8 Others

U.P. State Insustrial Development Authority Vs Navneet Bansal and 8 Others

Rambachan Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushil Kumar and Another Vs Mamta Devi and 6 Others

Shiv Shankar Self Help Group Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others