Disposed

The Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization and 3 Ors. v. M/S. Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Feb 2024I.A.(Civil)/2845/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On consensual basis, Justice Michael Zothankhuma appointed a retired judge as Court Commissioner to adjudicate the disputed provident fund arrears. The Court also directed State authorities to allow the Company seized documents access while maintaining a record.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Justice P.K. Deka as Court Commissioner; State authorities directed to permit access to seized company documents under record-making safeguards.

The Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010025262018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2845/2022

¶5

THE ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NIDHI BHAWAN BASISTHA LALMATI NH-37

¶6

GUWAHATI-29.

¶7

2: THE SECRETARY CUM PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

¶8

THE ASSAM TEA PLANTATIONS PROVIDENT FUND AND PENSION FUND SCHEME AND DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME NIDHI BHAWAN BASISTHA LALMATI NH-37 GUWAHATI -29.

¶9

3: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶10

BOARD OF TRUSTEES ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION NIDHI BHAWNA BASISTHA LALMATI NH-37 GUWAHATI -29.

¶11

4: THE RECOVERY OFFICER

¶12

ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION GOLAGHAT ZONE

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

GOLAGHAT. VERSUS

¶15

M/S. BOGIDHOLA TEA AND TRADING CO. PVT. LTD 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BOGIDHOLA TEA ESTATE P.O. LETEKUJAN DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM.

¶16

2:THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

¶17

GOLAGHAT. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT

¶18

DIST. GOLAGHAT.

¶19

-----------Advocate for : SC ATEPFO Advocate for : MR. P K TIWARI appearing for M/S. BOGIDHOLA TEA AND TRADING CO. PVT. LTD 2 ORS

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

08.02.2024

¶23

Heard Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant nos.1 to 4. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent company.

¶24

The dispute in the present case is with regard to the arrear provident fund amount payable by the respondent company. While the case of the applicant nos.1 to 4 is that the respondent company is to pay approximately Rs.88.9 lakhs without calculating the interest, the stand taken by the respondents is that the

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

amount payable by the respondent company is approximately Rs.6/7 lakhs.

¶27

The respondents’ counsel submits that while there is an issue with regard to the quantum of arrear provident fund to be paid by the respondents, the other issue pertains to the procedure to be followed in recovery of the alleged arrear amount.

¶28

The counsels for the parties have made submissions with regard to whether the mode of collection of the provident fund that has been undertaken by the applicants should be prospective or retrospective in nature, keeping in view the amended Section 15 of the Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund and Pension Fund and Deposit Linked Insurance Fund Scheme Act, 1955. However, during the course of arguments, counsels for the parties have agreed that the matter can be resolved, if the dispute between the parties with regard to the amount of provident fund payable by the respondents is resolved by a Court Commissioner, to be appointed by this Court.

¶29

Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel submits that as there is a lockout, all the documents of the company are sealed and unless an order is passed by this Court, to enable the respondents to take out documents in support of their claim, with regard to the payment of alleged arrears of provident fund, the Court Commissioner would not be able to resolve the dispute between the parties.

¶30

Accordingly, as per the consent of the parties, Mr. Justice P.K. Deka,

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

Retired Judge of the Gauhati High Court, is appointed as Court Commissioner to resolve the dispute, as to the actual amount of provident fund payable by the respondents to the applicant nos.1 to 4. The above being said, the State Government authorities shall permit the respondents to take out documents from the office of the respondent company, to enable the Court Commissioner to decide the dispute between the parties. However, the State Government authorities shall keep a record of the documents, including attested photocopies, that are taken out by the respondents, at the time of allowing them to take out the documents, which should be returned by the respondent company.

¶33

The Court Commissioner shall take a decision on the dispute between the parties preferably within 6 (six) months, from the date of giving consent on being appointed as a Court Commissioner and submit his decision to this Court. The Court Commissioner may also decide the remuneration that is to be paid to him prior to giving his consent for taking up the assignment.

¶34

I.A.(Civil) is accordingly disposed off.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

The Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization and 3 Ors. v. M/S. Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization and 3 Ors. v. M/S. Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishnu Prasad Basumatary Vs the Principal Secretary and 3 Ors.

Bhagya Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mihir Deka @ Mihir Ch Deka Vs Paban Kr. Barthakur and 4 Ors.

Khowang Goroimari Borbell Min Palan Samabai Samity Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Nasir Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prabhat Fertilizer and Chemical Works Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.