IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.14779 OF 2019 (L-PF) BETWEEN SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR M S/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O LAKKAPANAHALLI, BANNEKUPPE POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT-561 259 (BY SRI HANUMANTHAPPA A, ADVOCATE) AND 1. M/S SENAPATHY WHITELY PVT LTD ACHALU,POST BOX-10, RAMANAGARA-561 259 REP BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER, G.K.MANJUNATH ... PETITIONER 2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BHAVISHA NIDHI BHAVAN,NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AND IN EPF.ITB.NO.33/2017 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER (VIDE ANNEXURE-E) DATED 21.03.2019 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W US 7(j) 1 & 2 OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER An interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to come on record as an interested party came to be rejected by order dated 21.3.2019. Hence, this petition.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent. He made a complaint to the Provident Fund Commissioner regarding non deduction of PF contributions for causal and contract employees and non-enrolment of certain employees and illegal bifurcation of wages of workers to reduce the PF contribution. After acknowledging the complaint made by the petitioner, the Provident Fund Commissioner has passed an order directing the respondent to pay Rs.1,27,97,602/-. Against which a statutory appeal has been filed before the Tribunal under Section 7A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
3. In the said appeal, the complainant- petitioner made an application to come on record claiming that he is an interested party as president of the Association. The said contention of the appellant came to be rejected on the ground that as on the date of the proceedings before the Presiding Officer, he was no more President of the concerned trade union. Though he claims that he is a necessary party, he does not show what is his interest in the statutory proceedings before the Tribunal. The proceedings under Section 7A of the Act is statutory in nature. It is between the Provident Fund Commissioner or appropriate authority and the employer. When such is the situation, claiming that petitioner is to be impleaded as an interested party does not arise for consideration. Learned counsel submits that he is illegally dismissed from service. The very said statement shows that as on today he is not an employee of the respondent. The submission of the petitioner is that the dismissal has been challenged and it is pending consideration before the appropriate authority, which is altogether a different matter. Secondly when statutory appeal pending is between statutory authority and the respondent establishment. The interest of the employees of the respondent establishment would be taken care by the appropriate authority.
4. In view of the same, we do not propose to accept the claim of the petitioner that he is an interested party. The reasons assigned by the Industrial Tribunal are sound and proper and we do not find substantive reasons to accept claim of the petitioner as an interested party.
Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE KLY/ SD/- JUDGE