Allowed

M/S. Best Security Services v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jan 2025WPL/11/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarth allowed a petition by Best Security Services to quash an EPF inspection report dated 18.12.2024. The Court held that the report was submitted without supplying relevant documents or affording a hearing. The report was quashed, documents were to be supplied within 7 days, and a reply filed within another 7 days.

What did the court decide?

Inspection report dated 18.12.2024 quashed; relevant documents to be supplied within 7 days; petitioner to file reply within further 7 days.

M/S. Best Security Services Vs Employees Provident… — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:1712

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPL No. 11 of 2025

¶7

M/s. Best Security Services, Through: Its Proprietor Kuldeep Chaturvedi S/o Shri Rajkishore Chaturvedi Aged About 41 Years Having office At Flat No. 30 Third Floor Usha Kiran Parisar Behind Jagriti School Bhatagaon Raipur (C.G.).

¶8

--- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1- Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour And Employment Regional office At Pandri Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Having office At Block - D Scheme - 32 Indira Gandi Commercial Complex Pandri Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

2- Enforcement officer Employees Provident Fund Organization Ministry of Labour And Employment Regional office At Block - D Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex Pandri Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

10.01.2025

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶18

-2-

¶19

“ 10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the inspection report dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by the responded No.2 and submitted in proceedings of Diary No. 170/2021 initiated under Section 7A of EPF & MP Act, 1952, in the interest of justice.

¶20

10.2. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit be granted. ”

¶21

Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶22

submit that on a complaint of an NGO, a proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act, 1952), has been initiated against the petitioner. He would further submit that a report was submitted by the enforcement officer of the department on 22.08.2024 and according to that report, the petitioner was required to deposit 1,15,03,903 against the dues under the Act. He would₹ contend that the enforcement officer of the department again submitted a report on 18.12.2024 whereby assessed the payable amount to the tune of ₹4,15,98,399. He would also submit that the enforcement officer recorded the findings in the report dated 18.12.2024 on the basis of various complaints and documents submitted by the complainants.

¶23

Mr. Dixit would further argue that the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner, the report

¶24

was submitted. He would also argue that the respondent authorities may be directed to re-enquire into the matter after supplying the relevant documents submitted by the complainant(s); thus, he would pray that the

¶25

-3-

¶26

petitioner may be afforded sufficient opportunities to go through the documents to submit its reply, etc.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Pillai would submit that an enquiry was initiated according to Section 7A of the Act, 1952 and no decision has been taken yet by the enquiry officer. He would further submit that as there is no order or decision, therefore, this petition is premature. He would contend that there is a remedy of appeal against any order, etc. according to the provisions of Section 7 (I) of the Act 1952. He would argue that the petitioner has himself admitted in the daily order dated 31.12.2024 that one Kuldeep Chaturvedi has gone through the report and requested two weeks’ time to submit his response in support of his disagreement and to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. He would inform that the next date of hearing is 13.01.2025.

¶28

1. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

¶29

1. The daily order dated 31.12.2024 would reveal that one of the officers of the petitioner company went through the enquiry report and took time to file a response, but it is not reflected in the order that the relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner; an application was moved by the petitioner on 06.12.2024 to supply relevant documents before the respondent authorities. Further, the order passed in WPL No. 216 of 2024

¶30

would reveal that a report was submitted by respondent No.2 and in the

¶31

-4-

¶32

subsequent report, it is not stated as to what transpired to file a subsequent report without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without supplying the relevant documents.

¶33

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the report dated 18.12.2024 is hereby quashed . The respondent authorities are directed to provide all relevant documents including complaint(s) etc. to the petitioner within a period of 7 days . The petitioner would be at liberty to file a reply/response etc. within a further period of 7

¶34

days . Thereafter, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed with the matter and shall make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings as per order passed in WPL No.216 of 2024.

¶35

Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Nadim

M/S. Best Security Services v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Best Security Services v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

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

Branch Manager Vs Govind Gorai

Icici Lombard General Motor Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Raju Kashyap

Smt. Mamta Khare Vs Smt. Mamta Das

Laxminarayan Sahu Vs Chetan Gayakwad

Gulshan Kumar Saluja Vs Satish Kumar Saluja

Srishti Sinha Vs Ravishkant Agrawal