Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9967 of 1997 Petitioner :- M/S Rampur Distillery Rampur And Another Respondent :- R.P.F.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Mithal,Ravi Kant,Shakti Swaroop Nigam,Swapnil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi,D K Pandey,Dhananjay Awasthi,Sachindra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
This petition impugns a notice dated 08 October 1996 as well as an order dated 04 February 1997 in terms of which the petitioners have been held liable to deposit contributions in respect of employees who are stated to have been engaged through a contractor in the premises administered by the petitioner.
On 08 October 1996 the first respondent called upon the petitioner to furnish an explanation in respect of non payment of contributions relating to contractual employees engaged during the period September 1993 to August 1996. The said respondent after receipt of the reply furnished by and on behalf of the petitioners proceeded to pass the impugned order of 04 February 1997 holding the petitioners liable to pay the contribution. The aforesaid order was followed by a subsequent order of 17 March 1997. The order of 04 February 1997 took into consideration a report drawn by the inspecting squad on the basis of which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner noted that since the relevant records had already been inspected and verified by the squad, no further adjournments in the case were merited and that a separate order of assessment would consequently be drawn on the basis of the report so submitted. The first respondent thereafter proceeded to pass a further order of 17 March 1997 determining the sums found due and payable by the petitioners in respect of the contributions which were liable to be made in respect of employees engaged through a contractor. The order of 17 March 1997 has been assailed by way of an amendment application which has been allowed vide order dated 10 May 2012.
Although various submissions have been addressed by Sri Nigam learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in the considered view of this Court, the orders impugned are rendered unsustainable on the following principal ground.
As noted above, the notice of 08 October 1996 called upon the petitioner to show cause with respect to contributions which were liable to be made for the period September 1993 to August 1996. The orders ultimately passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner rests solely upon a report drawn by the inspecting squad which had visited the premises of the petitioners between 12 September 1996 to 19 September 1996. That report while dealing with the question of contributions pertaining to contractual employees had verified particulars for the period May 1995 to July 1996. It is on the basis of this report alone that the orders impugned have come to be framed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It is thus manifest that the order of assessment is based on particulars as gathered by the inspecting squad for the period May 1995 to July 1996 whereas the show cause notice pertained to the period September 1993 to August 1996. In view thereof the impugned orders are rendered unsustainable and are liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.
The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 04 February 1997 and 17 March 1997 are hereby quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the first respondent herein, who may draw fresh proceedings, if so chosen and advised. In case proceedings are redrawn, the first respondent shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and with due notice to the petitioners.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 faraz