Disposed

Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad v. Mr. P.C.Pati and Ors.

Patna HC19 Apr 2014MJC/2826/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment concerns a contempt application filed by a labour union against the Bihar State Electricity Board and the Provident Fund Department for failing to pay assessed provident fund dues. The court held that the Board's obligation to pay is established. With assurance from the Union regarding eligible beneficiaries and instructions for the Board to file statutory returns, the cou

What did the court decide?

Directed the Provident Fund Department to pay provident fund dues to identified labourers within one month. Closed the contempt proceeding.

Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad Vs Mr… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court MJC No.2826 of 2012 (17) dt. 19-04-2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2826 of 2012

¶4

====================================================== 1. Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union Through Its Secretary, Bharat Choudhary S/O Late Indradeo Choudhary R/O Village- Ram Basant Pur, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. P.C. Pati, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Regional Office, 'R' Block, Patna

¶7

Mr. Rajesh Pandeya, Incharge Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, 'R' Block, Patna

¶8

Mr. A.K. Mohanthi, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, 'R' Block, Patna

¶9

Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Chairman Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna .... .... Respondents

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶12

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh

¶13

For the Opposite parties 1 to 3: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate For the Board : Mr. V.N. Sahaya, Advocate

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH)

¶17

17 19-04-2014

¶18

Heard Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Provident Fund Department. Also heard Mr. V. N. Sahaya, learned Counsel, for the Bihar State Electricity Board.

¶19

2. The association of contract workers, namely, Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar

¶20

Patna High Court MJC No.2826 of 2012 (17) dt. 19-04-2014

¶21

¶22

Union, through its Secretary, has moved this application seeking initiation of a contempt proceeding against the Opposite parties for their alleged willful and deliberate violation of the order, dated 27.09.2011, passed in L.P.A. No. 1396 of 2011, whereby this Court had upheld the contention of the Provident Fund Department that the provisions of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, were applicable to the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) and the Board was, therefore, liable to extend provident fund benefits to the labourers engaged through contractors working at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station.

¶23

3. In a proceeding under Section 7A of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, as well as the Appellate Tribunal held that under the provisions of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Board was liable to pay provident fund to the labourers engaged through contractors working at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station. The Assistant Commissioner assessed the provident fund dues, at Rs.2,23,64,855/-, for the period from the year 1986 to April, 2000. An appeal, filed by the Board against the order of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, failed.

¶24

Patna High Court MJC No.2826 of 2012 (17) dt. 19-04-2014

¶25

¶26

4 . Being aggrieved, the Board filed C.W.J.C. No.13932 of 2008, which was disposed of by order, dated 17.05.2011, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge held that the Board was liable to pay provident fund benefits to the labourers engaged through contractors at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station. However, the learned single Judge, while setting aside partly the order of the Assistant Commissioner, observed that the order of the Assessing authority fixing the provident fund liability of the Board, with respect to the dues of the workers supplied by the contractors for the entire period of assessment i.e. 1986 to April, 2000, was not sustainable inasmuch as the Assessing Authority had not recorded a clear finding that the workers, included in the two lists, considered by the Assessing Authority, continued to serve the concerned units of the Board for the entire assessment period. The learned Single Judge remitted the matter to the Assessing authority with direction to identify the workers supplied by the contractors, during the assessment period, as early as possible and to pay their dues from the amount already recovered by the Assessing Authority by attaching the bank account of the Board. Learned single Judge, vide order, dated 17.05.2011, further observed that the

¶27

Patna High Court MJC No.2826 of 2012 (17) dt. 19-04-2014

¶28

¶29

amount, paid by the Board to the workers directly during the pendency of writ petition, be refunded to the Board on their written undertaking that they shall make available the said amount as and when the same is required for payment of provident fund dues exceeding the recovered amount.

¶30

5. Against the order of learned single Judge, Bihar State Electricity Board filed L.P.A. No. 1037 of 2011 and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed L.P.A. No. 1396 of 2011. The Electricity Board was aggrieved as the learned single Judge had upheld the order of the Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal that the provisions of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, so far as it relates to payment of provident fund benefits to the labourers employed through contractor, would be fully applicable. The Provident Fund Department, on the other hand, was aggrieved by a part of the order, whereby the learned single Judge had directed the Assessing Officer for fresh identification of the workers supplied by the contractors during the assessment period to the extent of the period they worked for.

¶31

6. The Division Bench upheld the contention of the Provident Fund Department that the Assistant Commissioner had already made due identification of the

¶32

Patna High Court MJC No.2826 of 2012 (17) dt. 19-04-2014

¶33

¶34

workmen to which there was no contest by the concerned contractors or by the Board or by the Principal employer and, as such, there was no need for remanding the matter for identification of the workmen. The Division Bench allowed L.P.A. No. 1396 of 2012 filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to the extent that the learned single Judge had set aside the order, dated 15.01.2000, made by the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, under Section 7A of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh identification of the workmen. The L.P.A. No. 1037 of 2011, filed by the Board, was, however, dismissed.

¶35

7. Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union, through its Secretary, is the petitioner in this contempt application. They submit that the Provident Fund Department has not yet made payment of the provident fund benefits of the labourers.

¶36

8. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Provident Fund Department, submits that the Provident Fund Department is ready to make payment of the provident fund amount recovered from the Board to the workers as soon as latter submits statutory return and it is because of non-

¶37

Patna High Court MJC No.2826 of 2012 (17) dt. 19-04-2014

¶38

¶39

submission of statutory returns that the Provident Fund Department has been facing difficulty in making payment of the provident fund dues to the workers inasmuch as there is possibility that some unauthorized persons may take away the benefit of genuine beneficiary. Mr. Verma also submits that in any view of the matter, the Provident Fund Department may be protected from further claims of pension from individual employee of the petitioner’s Union. Mr. Verma further submits that the Opposite party may also be protected from the claim being raised by the Board for refund of Rs. 82 lakhs, which the Board asserts to have paid to the workers directly against the provident fund dues, because of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge.

¶40

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the said payment of Rs. 82 lakhs was for a different period and does not cover the period, in question, in this contempt application.

¶41

10. A supplementary affidavit has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, whereunder they assure that there is no likelihood of any claim being raised by any other worker beyond the list (Annexure-C) inasmuch as the said list is a complete list of workers, who are, in the present case, beneficiaries of the provident fund benefit.

¶42

Patna High Court MJC No.2826 of 2012 (17) dt. 19-04-2014

¶43

¶44

11 . We find that both, the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, have held that the labourers, engaged through contractors, would be entitled to provident fund benefit and the provisions of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, would be applicable to the workers of the Board. As the Board had not deposited the provident fund dues of the labourers, the bank account of the Board was attached by the Provident Fund Department. Now that the Provident Fund Department has recovered the amount from the Board, it is obliged to make payment of the provident fund dues to the labourers. To be fair, the Provident Fund Department has no serious objection in making payment to the genuine labourers. Basically, the grievance of the Provident Fund Department is that the Board has not filed any statutory return, which could have ensured payment to the genuine workers, and would have also protected the Provident Fund Department against payment to unauthorized persons.

¶45

12 . With regard to the above it is worth reiterating that the Union, in its affidavit, has clearly asserted that it would not raise any claim on behalf of any body, whose name does not find mentioned in the in the list, in question. Further-more, if any body raises claim

¶46

Patna High Court MJC No.2826 of 2012 (17) dt. 19-04-2014

¶47

¶48

and is found to be genuine beneficiary, the Union undertakes to make payment of provident fund dues to which such a person may be entitled after making recovery of the said amount from unauthorized person or persons.

¶49

13 . In the circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that since necessary safeguards have, already been assured to the Provident Fund Department, it shall make payment of the provident fund dues in accordance with the list already identified by Assessing Officer, expeditiously and, preferably, within a period of one month.

¶50

14 . It goes without saying that the Board cannot escape its liability of filing statutory returns under the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which they must do.

¶51

15 . With the aforesaid observations and directions, this contempt proceeding stands closed.

¶52

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

¶53

I agree

¶54

I.A. Ansari, J. :

¶55

(I.A. Ansari, J.)

¶56

Md.Jamaluddin Khan/Anand

Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad v. Mr. P.C.Pati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad v. Mr. P.C.Pati and 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

Shanti Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Dr. Abdul Latif Vs Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University and Ors.

Babita Massey Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Manoj Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar

Pinki Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Prem Kumar and Ors. Vs Jitwahan Sharma and Ors.