Disposed

Kalpataru Properties (Thane) Private Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I)

Bombay HC12 Aug 2024WP/3704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged EPF Act orders under Sections 7A and 7B as passed without considering material or granting hearing. By minutes of order, the court quashed the inquiry and review orders and remanded the inquiries for fresh adjudication after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Review orders under S.7B and inquiry orders under S.7A quashed; matters remanded for fresh hearing and decision under S.7A; no costs.

Kalpataru Properties (Thane) Private Limited vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

916-WP-3704-2024+.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3704 OF 2024

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.19716 OF 2024

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.19718 OF 2024

¶9

Kalpataru Properties (Thane) Private Limited …Petitioner Versus

¶10

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I), Mumbai & Anr. …Respondents

¶11

Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Mr. Saket Mone a/w. Mr. Suneet Tyagi, Ms. Krishna Raja and Ms. Archita Nair, Advocates, i/b. Vidhii Partners, for the Petitioner in WP/3704/2024.

¶12

Mr. Saket Mone a/w. Ms. Krishna Raja and Ms. Archita Nair, Advocates, i/b. Mr. Suneet Kr. Tyagi, for the Petitioner in WPL/19716/2024 and WPL/19718/2024.

¶13

Mr. Ravi Rattesar, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1.

¶14

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 21^st AUGUST 2024

¶15

P. C.:

¶16

By the present Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the

¶17

Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the legality

¶18

and validity of the impugned orders passed under Section 7A of

¶19

the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

¶20

Page 1 of 7

¶21

Sonali

¶22

916-WP-3704-2024+.DOC

¶23

1952 (“the said Act”) and the orders passed under Section 7B of the said Act.

¶24

It is the contention of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the impugned orders are passed without considering the material on record.

¶25

Mr. Rattesar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 supported the impugned orders. However, thereafter he submitted that the Petitioners have not given particulars of the contractors before the concerned authority. It is the submission of Mr. Kanade, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the particulars of the contractors were given to the Respondents. In view of the said submission of Mr. Rattesar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, Mr. Kanade, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions, states that said particulars will be furnished afresh to the authorities.

¶26

In view of these submissions, learned Counsel appearing for

¶27

the Petitioner and Respondents in all the Writ Petitions tenders Minutes of Order. Said Minutes of Order are taken on record and

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

Sonali

¶30

916-WP-3704-2024+.DOC

¶31

marked ‘X’ for identification. The said Minutes of Order reads as under:

¶32

“ MINUTES OF ORDER

¶33

Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Mr. Saket Mone, Mr. Suneet Kr Tyagi, Ms. Krishna Raja and Ms. Anchita Nair i/b Vidhii Partners, for the Petitioner in WP No. 3704 of 2024.

¶34

Mr. Saket Mone a/w Ms. Krishna Raja and Ms. Anchita Nair i/b Suneet Kr Tyagi for the Petitioner in WP (L) No. 19716 of 2024 and WP (L) No. 19718 of 2024.

¶35

Mr. Ravi Rattesar for Respondent No. 1 in all the Petitions.

¶36

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

¶37

DATED: 21^st AUGUST 2024

¶38

P.C.:

¶39

Heard Mr. Vishal Kanade and Mr. Saket Mone, Learned Counsels for the Petitioners and Mr. Rattesar, Learned Counsel for the Respondent. The present Petitions inter alia challenge the following:

¶40

W.P. No.	Inquiry Order u/s 7A of the EPF Act, 1952	Review Order u/s 7B of the EPF Act, 1952
WP No.	Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing	Review Order dated
3704 of	Reference No.	08.05.2024 bearing
2024	MH/BAN/45923/Circle-IV/903	Reference No.

¶41

Page 3 of 7

¶42

Sonali

¶43

916-WP-3704-2024+.DOC

¶44

		MHBAN0045923/ Compliance/64 in Review Application Diary No. 41 of 2020
WP (L)	Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing	Review Order dated
No.	Reference No.	08.05.2024 bearing
19716	MH/BAN/39153/Circle-IV/901	Reference No.
of 2024		MHBAN0039153/
		Compliance/65 in Review Application Diary No. 44 of 2020
WP (L)	Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing	Review Order dated
No.	Reference No.	08.05.2024 bearing
19718	MH/BAN/39151/Circle-IV/904	Reference No.
of 2024		MHBAN0039151/
		Compliance/66 in
		Review Application
		Diary No. 43 of 2020

¶45

It is the case of the Petitioners that the Impugned Review Orders dated 08.05.2024 passed u/s 7B of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“ the EPF Act ”) as well as the impugned Inquiry Orders dated 31.01.2020 passed u/s 7A of the EPF Act are passed without giving any cogent reasons and substantial grounds for rejecting the Review Applications, without considering the pleadings, documents and submissions of the Petitioners or looking into, giving any opportunity

¶46

Page 4 of 7

¶47

Sonali

¶48

916-WP-3704-2024+.DOC

¶49

of being heard to the Petitioners in the Inquiry and Review proceedings.

¶50

Mr. Rattesar, Counsel for Respondent No. 1, objects to the allowing of the Petition and further submits that the Petitioners to submit the particulars of the contractors before the concerned authority from their records.

¶51

In view of the above, the Review Order dated 08.05.2024 in Review Application Diary No. 41 of 2020 , Review Order dated 08.05.2024 in Review Application Diary No. 44 of 2020, Review Order dated 08.05.2024 in Review Application Diary No. 43 of 2020 and Inquiry Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing Reference No.

¶52

MH/BAN/45923/Circle-IV/903, Inquiry Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing Reference No. MH/BAN/39153/Circle-IV/901 and Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing Reference No. MH/BAN/39151/Circle-IV/904 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded for hearing before the concerned Authority, to hear the Petitioners and decide the Inquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act, afresh in accordance with law by giving Petitioners reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶53

Accordingly, the following order is passed:-

¶54

a) Review Order dated 08.05.2024 bearing Reference No. MHBAN0045923/ Compliance/64 dated 27.05.2024 in Review Application Diary No. 41 of 2020 , Review Order dated 08.05.2024 bearing Reference No. MHBAN0039153/ Compliance/65 dated 27.05.2024 in Review Application Diary No. 44 of 2020 and Review Order dated 08.05.2024 bearing Reference No. MHBAN0039151/ Compliance/66 dated 27.05.2024 in Review

¶55

Page 5 of 7

¶56

Sonali

¶57

916-WP-3704-2024+.DOC

¶58

Application Diary No. 43 of 2020 under Section 7B of the EPF Act are quashed and set aside;

¶59

b) Inquiry Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing Reference No. MH/BAN/45923/Circle-IV/903 dated 18.02.2020, Inquiry Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing Reference No. MH/BAN/39153/Circle-IV/901 dated 14.02.2020 and Inquiry Order dated 31.01.2020 bearing Reference No. MH/BAN/39151/Circle-IV/904 dated 18.02.2020 under Section 7A of the EPF Act are quashed and set aside;

¶60

c) The concerned Authority is directed to hear the Petitioners and all concerned parties and decide the Inquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act afresh in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity;

¶61

d) The Petitioners are directed to submit the details and particulars of the contractors and documents, if any, from their available records to the concerned authority for adjudication of the inquiry proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act;

¶62

e) All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open;

¶63

f) The Petitions are disposed off; and

¶64

g) Liberty is granted to the parties to approach this Court, if required.”

¶65

Page 6 of 7

¶66

Sonali

¶67

916-WP-3704-2024+.DOC

¶68

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of the

¶69

Minutes of Order with no order as to costs.

¶70

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶71

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALIMILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date:2024.08.21 17:49:39 +0530

¶72

Page 7 of 7

¶73

Sonali

Kalpataru Properties (Thane) Private Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpataru Properties (Thane) Private Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I)

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shanti Devi Widow of Manoharlal Chanderbhan vs Kewalram Mulchand and Ors.

Deepak Bahry Shivkumar Bahry vs Heart and Soul Entertainment Ltd. and Anr.

Rajkumar @ Munna Harihar Nishad vs State of Maharashtra

Shamrav Dhondiba Kamble vs Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (a Mhada Unit)

Sandeep Shinde and Jyoti Sandeep Shinde vs Cfm Asset Reconstruction Pvt.Ltd.

Gadekar Amol Vitthal vs State of Maharashtra