Dismissed¶¶21

Regional Provident Fund Commis v. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CWP/14862/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPF Appellate Tribunal remand order dated 21.09.1998 (Annexure P-5); penalty reduction to 12%; No Objection Certificate; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner; Central Board of Trustees EPFO; CWP-14862-1999, CWP-8466-2000, CWP-17938-1999 (O&M); no interim order; fresh orders after 2 ½ decades; only observations not directions; no interference by High Court; writ petitions dismissed; authorities free to pass afresh order; Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi; 07-05-2025.

What did the court decide?

A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 21.09.1998 shows that discretion was given to the authorities concerned to pass an appropriate order, the only request being that, in case the penalty payable can be charged at 12% per annum, the same be charged. ¶¶15

Regional Provident Fund Commis Vs Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.09.1998 (Annexure P-5) of the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal — remanding the matter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with observations regarding reduction of penalty to 12% — warranted interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order contained no direction; only observations were made, and those observations were made the subject matter of this petition.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances — only observations having been made while the decision was left to the authorities concerned — no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.ratio¶¶19
There was no interim order, and an appropriate order must have been passed by the petitioner upon the remand.obiter¶¶13
Once the fresh orders might already have been passed after a period of 2 ½ decades, no interference is called for by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh — Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) — Decision 07-05-2025 — Common order dismissing three connected writ petitions (CWP-14862-1999, CWP-8466-2000, CWP-17938-1999, all O&M) filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organisation against the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Anr. The petitions challenged the Tribunal's order dated 21.09.1998 (Annexure P-5) remanding the case back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with the observation that, in case a 'No Objection Certificate' is issued to the appellant, the authority will reconsider its order and reduce the penalty to 12%. Held: the impugned order conferred discretion on the authorities and contained only observations, not directions; there was no interim order and an appropriate/fresh order must have been passed upon remand, possibly as long as 2 ½ decades ago; consequently no ground for interference by this Court. Petitions dismissed; pending applications disposed of; the authorities remain well within their jurisdiction to pass an afresh order if none has been passed. Speaking order; not reportable.

¶1

212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of Decision : 07-05-2025 1. CWP-14862-1999 (O&M) REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISIONER ........Petitioner(s) VERSUS EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR. ........Respondent(s) 2. CWP-8466-2000 (O&M) CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION ........Petitioner(s) VERSUS EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR ........Respondent(s) 3. CWP-17938-1999 (O&M) CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION ........Petitioner VERSUS EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR ........Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶3

Present: Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocat e for the petitioner in CWP N o .14862 of 1999. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advoca t e For the petitioner in CWP N o .8466 of 2000 and CWP No.17938 of 1999.

¶4

SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.12 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶5

CWP-14862-1999 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶6

-2-

¶7

Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate with Mr. Rajdeep Cheema, Advocate and Ms. Sunita Punia, Advocate For the respondent No.2 in CWP No.14862 of 1999.

¶8

Mr. S.K Sandhir, Advocate for the respondent ( joined through V.C.)

¶9

¶10

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

¶11

Present bunch of three writ petitions involve common question of law in the context of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order.

¶12

In CWP No.14862 of 1999, the order under challenge dated 21.09.1998 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal by which, the case was remanded back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that in case, the said authority is going to issue “No Objection Certificate” to appellant, he will reconsider his order and reduce the penalty to 12%, the same be done or, the order which the authority thinks proper should be passed.

¶13

There was no interim order and an appropriate order must have been passed by the petitioner upon the remand.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads ignorance about any orders passed.

¶15

A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 21.09.1998 would show that the discretion was given to the authorities concerned to pass an appropriate order and the only request was that in case, the penalty payable can be charged at 12% per annum, the same be charged. There is no

¶16

SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.12 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP-14862-1999 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶18

-3- direction given rather, only observations have been made, which have been made the subject matter of this petition.

¶19

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances as, only the observations were made but the decision was left to the authorities concerned, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.17938 of 1999 and CWP No.8466 of 2000 submits that even otherwise, there was no interim order qua the orders impugned which was remanded back for re-assessing the damages after finding out the actual amount of Provident Fund contribution etc. and the authorities must have passed the fresh orders. Once, the fresh orders might have already been passed after a period of 2 ½ decades, no interference is called for by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case

¶21