Dismissed

Nevdac Prosthetic Centre Daulatsinghwala v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2009LPA/3/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the applicability of the Employees Provident Fund Act to an establishment manufacturing artificial limbs, held by the lower court to fall within the definition of engineering products.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Infraction regarding future imposition of damages or penalties is left open for the appellant to seek remedy in accordance with law.

Nevdac Prosthetic Centre Daulatsingh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

(1)

¶2

LPA No. 3 of 1997

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 3 of 1997 Date of Decision: March 17, 2009

¶5

M/s Novedac Prosthetic Centre

¶6

....Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Shri R.N. Raina, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶14

Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶15

Hemant Gupta, J.

¶16

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.5.1996.

¶17

The appellant (petitioner in writ petition) has challenged the applicability of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions, Act, 1952 (for short `the Act'), to its establishment, engaged in manufacturing of artificial limbs to meet the requirement of disabled individuals. On 14.5.1981, the appellant was given a notice that the establishment of the appellant is covered by the provisions of the Act, but the appellant submitted a representation under Section 19-A of the Act to the effect that the appellant is not an Industry, but a hospital and, therefore,

¶18

(2)

¶19

LPA No. 3 of 1997

¶20

the provisions of the Act, cannot be extended to it. Such representation was declined by the Central Government vide order dated 15.5.1982 (Annexure P.3). The appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, wherein a finding was returned that the establishment of the appellant is covered under the provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge held that the establishment of the appellant falls within the scope of the definition of “electrical, mechanical and general engineering products” as specified in Schedule-I of the Act and consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶21

During the pendency of the present appeal, the new Management of the appellant submitted a representation that even if the Act is not applicable, they would like the the workers to benefit from the provisions of the Act, therefore, the appellant sought that the Act be made applicable to the appellant's establishment with effect from 24.5.1996 i.e. the date of the judgment of this Court and that no damage, penalty or interest be levied. Such representation was submitted in pursuance of an order passed by this Court on 25.7.2007, whereby the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, was to consider the matter regarding applicability of the provisions of the Act, to the appellant's establishment, sympathetically, especially with regard to the appellant's willingness to submit to the provisions of the Act.

¶22

In pursuance of the said order and the representation, an order has been passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, on 19.9.2007, wherein it has been observed that the authority has no discretionary powers, to change the date of coverage of the establishment or to assure the employer for not levying damage, penalty or interest as requested by the establishment.

¶23

LPA No. 3 of 1997 (3)

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that no order has been passed imposing damage, penalty or interest as provided under Section 14-B of the Act. In view of the said fact and the fact that the appellant is not disputing the applicability of the Act to its establishment, we do not find that any case is made out for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶25

The request of the appellant to change the date of coverage to the date of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is not tenable. The order of the Court does not create new rights, but only explains the position in law. This Court, while interpreting the provisions of the Act, has returned a finding that the appellant is an establishment to which the Act is applicable, therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument that the Act should be made applicable to the appellant's establishment, from the date of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶26

In respect of waiver of damage, interest or penalty, suffice it to say that no order has been passed imposing damages, interest or penalty. As and when any damages are levied, it shall be open to the appellant to seek its remedy in accordance with law, wherein the appellant shall be free to submit the nature of its activities so as to seek waiver of the levy of damages, interest or penalty. It is open to the appellant to seek such other remedy as may be available to the appellant in respect of levy of damages, interest or penalty, but no such relief can be granted to the appellant in the present appeal as the scope of this appeal is limited to the applicability of the Act, to the establishment of the appellant.

¶27

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the appellant to

¶28

(4)

¶29

LPA No. 3 of 1997

¶30

seek its remedy in respect of damages, interest or penalty, in accordance

¶31

with law from an appropriate Forum.

¶32

(T.S. THAKUR) (HEMANT GUPTA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶33

March 17, 2009 ds

Nevdac Prosthetic Centre Daulatsinghwala v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nevdac Prosthetic Centre Daulatsinghwala v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

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

Handicapped Welfare Group Hou. Society Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Inderjit Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurmit Kaur Vs State of Pb. etc.

Kajheri Residents Welfare Society Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunder Pal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tilda Riceland Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.