Disposed

M/S Roshni Gas Service v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Jun 2022WP(C)/3335/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Gauhati High Court directed the petitioner, M/S Roschni Gas Service, to appear before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner with relevant documents by July 1, 2022, in response to proceedings under the EPF Act 1952, while temporarily suspending the freezing of the petitioner's bank account.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant PF Commissioner by 01.07.2022 with documents; suspended the order freezing the Bank of Baroda account pending the disposal of proceedings.

M/S Roshni Gas Service Vs the Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010012042014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3335/2014

¶5

M/S ROSHNI GAS SERVICE

¶6

A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF SHRI SIBAJI ROY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RADHA MADHAB ROAD, SILCHAR, 788001, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶9

2:THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER EPFO MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVT. OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE N.E. REGION G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY- 5 ASSAM.

¶10

3:THE ASSTT. P.F. COMMISSIONER COMPLIANCE REGIONAL OFFICE N.E. REGION G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY- 5 ASSAM.

¶11

4:THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER N.E. REGION EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVT. OF INDIA

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

1ST FLOOR C/O- RANJIT ROY PROP RISHITA ENTERPRISE NEAR NETAJI STATUE RANGIRKHARI SILCHAR- 788005.

¶14

5:THE BANK OF BARODA SHILLONG PATTY BRANCH REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER S.P. MUKHERJEE ROAD SILCHAR- 788001

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B SARMA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.P K ROY

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶19

10/06/2022

¶20

Heard Ms. S Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P K Roy, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S K Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4.

¶21

The respondents in the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization initiated a proceeding under Section 7 (A) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the petitioner as from the inspection made in the petitioner’s Gas Services, authorities in the EPF Organization found that it has engaged 21 nos. of employees if not more since February, 2005 and therefore, it covers under the said 1952 Act including 41 nos. of its employees.

¶22

On 04.08.2009, though the EPF authorities issued notice to the petitioner to place the relevant documents but as it did not appear, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Guwahati by communication No. AS/10588 Enf/ Com/1810 dated 12.06.2014 communicated to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Shillong Patty, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Silchar informing him to freeze the SB Account of the petitioner with the said bank.

¶23

The respondent EPF authorities issued the said direction to the respondent Bank of Baroda exercising the power under Section 32(b) of the CPC as provided under the said EPF Act.

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on 27.06.2014 stating that prior to issuance of said impugned communication dated 12.06.2014 to the respondent Bank of Baroda, Silchar Bench, no prior notice was ever issued or served to it regarding initiation of any such proceeding under the said 1952 Act.

¶26

While issuing notice to the respondents, the Court by order dated 01.07.2014 stayed the impugned communication dated 12.06.2014 of the Assistant PF Commissioner (Compliance) to the Bank of Baroda, Silchar Branch which is still in force.

¶27

The respondent EPF Organization have filed their affidavit in the matter on 01.02.2016 to which the petitioner submitted its reply on 26.11.2018 stating that it did not receive any such notice under Section 7(A) of the said 1952 act initiated against it by the respondent authorities.

¶28

After filing of the affidavit by the respondent EPF authorities in the present case on 01.02.2016, the petitioner is aware of the fact that a proceeding under Section 7(A) of the said 1952 Act had been initiated against it.

¶29

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the entire aspects of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Regional Office, North East Region, G.S. Road, Guwahati respondent No. 3 on or before 01.07.2022 with all the relevant documents in terms of the summons issued under Section 7(A) of the said 1952 Act under No.NE/GHY/10588/Enf/Compliance/ 12969970 dated 29.10.2013 issued under Section 7(A) of the said 1952 Act, Annexure-VII to the affidavit of the respondent EPF Organization.

¶30

In the event of appearance of the petitioner before the said respondent No. 3 within the said specified time, the authorities in the EPF shall consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the said 1952 Act.

¶31

Subject to appearance of the petitioner before the respondent No. 3, i.e, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) as directed above on or before 01.07.2022, the impugned communication dated 12.06.2014 shall remain suspended.

¶32

Further, in the evident of appearance of the petitioner before the respondent No. 3, it is specified that within the said time as directed above, till such completion of the proceeding, the respondents in the EPF shall not give effect to the impugned order of freezing the Bank account of the

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

petitioner. However, the petitioner shall co-operate and participate in the said proceeding under Section 7(A) of said 1952 Act.

¶35

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

M/S Roshni Gas Service v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Roshni Gas Service v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

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

Pulin Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

The Chairman Vs Rofiquel Islam and 5 Ors.

The Union of India and Anr. Vs Valerius Ekka and 42 Ors.

M/S Dehing Part I Fishery Co-Operative Society Limited Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dipanjali Bora Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Aswini Bezbaruah Vs the Union of India and 11 Ors.