BALLY JUTE COMPANY LTD. vs REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

WPA 18750 of 2023

Bally Jute Company Ltd.
Vs.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.

With
WPA 22721 of 2023
Birla Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Vs.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, EPF Org. & Ors.


For the Petitioner in WPA 18750 : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv.
of 2023 & Respondent no. 8 in Mr. Barnamoy Basak, Adv.
WPA 22721 of 2023


For the Respondent No.3 in WPA : Mr. Partha Bhanja Chowdhury, Adv.
18750 of 2023 & WPA 22721 of 2023 Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Deblina Banerjee, Adv.

For the P.F. Authorities in WPA : Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad.
18750 of 2023 & WPA 22721 of 2023


Judgment reserved on : 31.07.2026
Judgment delivered on : 31.08.2026
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:-
1. Both the writ applications have been preferred against an order
02.06.2023, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Kolkata in Appeal No. EPF-09 of 2012, which was preferred against an

2

order under Section 7A of the Act of 1952, for the period January, 1993
to December, 1996.
2. The petitioner, Bally Jute Company Limited was originally owned by
Birla Corporation Limited and was transferred to Bally Jute Company
th
Limited on 9 April, 1997.
3. The period of enquiry in the present case by the Provident Fund
authorities under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as the
EPF&MP Act, 1952) is from 1993 to 1996.
4. The petitioner’s case is that an 'Apprentices' is not an employee within
the meaning of the Certified Standing Orders of Birla Corporation
Limited. These 'Apprentices' were ultimately absorbed as employees
by Bally Jute Company Limited after 1997. On the basis of a letter of
complaint dated 20th January, 2009 by Bally Jute Company Limited
Shramik Sangathan through its General Secretary, the proceeding was
initiated under Section 7A of the EPF&MP Act, 1952.
5. The company's stand in the proceeding was principally as follows:-
(a) Long delay of 13 to 15 years, considering the date of complaint
would render the proceeding violative of the principles of natural
justice, since records of the company would not be available for
such old period. Non availability of records of such old period
would make the petitioner prejudiced in defense, if the
proceedings continue.

3

(b) Certified Standing Orders had excluded 'Apprentices' from the
category of employees and any contrary finding would be violative
of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. This
view has been taken by the Authorized Officer of the Provident
Fund Department also; and not challenged by the department.
6. In course of the Section 7A proceeding, the four recognized trade unions
of workmen had given written representations that they do not have any
objection with regard to the period from 1993 to 1996 to be reckoned,
as non-employment for the 'Apprentices'. Hence, no Provident Fund
contributions are payable for that period.
7. The Section 7A order dated 24th May, 2012 was passed by holding
that the dispute was to be resolved under the provisions of the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which can provide
for interpretation of the provisions of Certified Standing Orders. This
order has been accepted by the Provident Fund Department and
attained finality.
8. A statutory appeal filed by the complainant trade union was disposed of
vide an order dated 2nd June, 2023 holding that the order of the
Section 7A Authority suffered from illegality and the matter was
remanded to cause detailed enquiry into the complaint raised by
the union's letter.
9. However, the Learned Tribunal expressed its opinion that the trainees
could be employees by reason of the purported emoluments earned by

4

them. Such order of the Appellate Tribunal is under challenge through
the writ petitions by the writ petitioners in both the cases.
10. Petitioner submits that the complaint, which has been directed by the
Appellate Tribunal to be considered, afresh, is non-est in the eye of law
because the trade union itself is not a registered trade union. On
the basis of an interim order dated 06.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble
Court, the properties of the complainant General Secretary of the trade
union were caused to be looked into and the CID has given a report
dated 13.02.2026 in W.P.A. No. 18750 of 2023 revealing that the
General Secretary has substantial assets.
11. It is submitted that the Petitioner had sought clarification from the
Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act, 1946 where upon clarification was given on 29th May, 2012 in
favour of exercise of jurisdiction by the Certifying Officer under
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
12. The order of the Appellate Tribunal has been challenged on the
following grounds:-
a) On the anvil of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, trainees are not employees and the
definition of “employee” excludes 'Apprentices'.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore Vs.
Central Arecanut & Coca Marketing & Processing Coop. Ltd..
(2006) 2 SCC 381 [Paras 12 to 14].

5

b) A Section 7A authority is incompetent to re-appraise such
evidence. In any event, the Provident Fund department has
accepted such order dated 24th May, 2012. At the behest of a
General Secretary of an unauthorized trade union, such issue
cannot be raked up or agitated.
c) Delay of sixteen years has caused grave prejudice and violation
of the principles of natural justice. (Himachal Pradesh State
Forest Corporation -versus- Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, (2008) 5 SCC 756 (Paras 4 and 5)).
d) Complaint at the behest of an unregistered trade union and a
General Secretary is not to be entertained.
e) Reply of the Section 7A authority to the complaint is that they
have stated that the dispute regarding the status as
learners/eligible apprentices or otherwise can be resolved
only by competent authority under Section 13A of Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 that is, designated
Labour Court but not any authority under EPF&MP Act, 1952.
If such be the factual position, then Section 71 appeal itself
becomes non-est rendering all proceedings in relation to the
appeal to be infructuous.
13. During pendency of both the Writ Petitions, pursuant to the direction
passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the Criminal

6

Investigation Department had caused an investigation and inter-alia
collected the following information:-
"During investigation it came to know that Bally Jute Company
Limited Shramik Sangathan is not at all any affiliated Trade
Union/Shramik Sanghatan/Labour Welfare Organization etc, of
Bally Jute Company Limited. Examining the authority of Bally Jute
Company Limited, it came to know that there is no Trade
Union/Shramik Sangathan/Labour Welfare Organization etc. named
and style as "Bally Jute Company Limited Shramik Sangathan" in their
company. There was one 'majdoor', namely, Sri Birbal Ray who had
been terminated in 2011 from the company.
The status report has been filed before this Hon'ble Court by the
Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal.
14. It is submitted that the order dated 2nd June, 2023 passed by the
National Industrial Tribunal/Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Kolkata is liable to be quashed for the following reasons:-
i. The proceeding under Section 7A and 7B and the Appeal
preferred under 71 of the Act of 1952 has been initiated at the
instance of Birbal Ray as the General Secretary of Bally Jute
Company Limited Shramik Sangathan admittedly which has no
entity in the eye of law.

7

In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply &
Drainage Board Employees' Assn. & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731
(2), Para 38, the Supreme Court held:-
“38. In the writ petition filed by Respondents 1 and
2 their locus standi to challenge the appointment of
the appellant was asserted in the following words:
“The petitioner Association is a trade union registered
under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner is
the only registered trade union existing in the 2nd
respondent Board. The Board has held several
negotiations with the petitioner Union with regard to
the service conditions of the employees of the 2nd
respondent Board since its formation in the year
1986. The Board has entered into several settlements
with the petitioner Union with regard to their service
conditions. The petitioner which is a recognised trade
union is entitled to agitate the matter with regard to
the appointment of the 3rd respondent to the Board.
The petitioner is concerned about the functioning of
the 2nd respondent Board, and as such is entitled to
question the appointment of the 3rd respondent as
Managing Director on contract basis. Hence, the
petitioner has locus standi to file this writ petition.”
(emphasis supplied)
These averments were established to be false. The
registration of the first respondent under the Trade
Unions Act had been cancelled as early as on 2-11-
1992. It is not a registered and recognised union. In
fact, it was pointed out that the one recognised
association is the Karnataka Urban Water Supply
and Drainage Board Officers' and Employees'
Association and the first respondent does not have
even a handful of members. The fact of cancellation of
registration of the first respondent came to the
knowledge of the appellant long after the disposal of
the earlier Writ Petition No. 44001 of 1995 wherein
the Court had given a finding that the first respondent
has locus standi to challenge the appointment of the
appellant to the post of Managing Director of the
Board solely on the ground that it is a registered
trade union. In our opinion, the High Court gravely
erred in refusing to examine the question of locus

8

standi on the ground that it is decided in the earlier
writ petition which operates as res judicata and that
the petitioners even otherwise have locus standi.
Chapter III of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 sets out
rights and liabilities of the registered trade unions.
Under the said enactment, an unregistered trade
union or a trade union whose registration has been
cancelled has no manner of right whatsoever, even
the rights available under the ID Act have been
limited only to those trade unions which are
registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 by
insertion of clause 2(qq) in the ID Act w.e.f. 21-8-1984
defining a trade union to mean a trade union
registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.”

ii. The proceeding has been initiated at a gross belated stage,
nearly after 30 years from the alleged period and about 26
years when the notice dated 6th September, 2023 was issued to
Birla Corporation Limited.
In Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation v. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, (2008) 5 SCC 756, the
Supreme Court held:-
“4. Mr M.N. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant has at the outset very fairly pointed out that
as of today and in the light of the fact that the
Corporation itself had voluntarily submitted that it was
covered by the provisions of the Act the question of a
dispute with regard to the liability of the Corporation
was now largely academic, but has pleaded that as
the employees in question were seasonal employees
and the matter pertained to a long-gone period i.e.
1982-1988, the record pertaining to the employees was
not available either with the Corporation or with the
contractors and that in many a case those who stood
to benefit were not even traceable, it would be
appropriate that the impugned orders be quashed as

9

they would not serve any useful purpose. It has also
been pleaded that although there was no limit
prescribed under the Act within which proceedings
under Section 7-A could be initiated, but under the
broad principle that a reasonable period ought to be
read into the statute, the present delay of 16 years
from 1982 could not be justified. The learned counsel
for the respondents has, however, argued that the
Tribunal and the High Court had granted a limited
relief to the employees inasmuch that the examination
of the claim was to be limited only to those employees
who could be identified and that as the authorities
below had exercised their authority with respect to a
beneficent legislation for the weaker sections, it would
be inappropriate to interfere with the impugned orders.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the record. We do appreciate
that the inaction on the part of the Commissioner to
initiate proceedings within a reasonable time, has to be
deplored. However, as the Corporation has itself
submitted that it was covered under the Act and in
view of the limited relief granted by the authorities
below and by the High Court, we are disinclined to
interfere with the matter at this stage. We accordingly
dismiss the appeals but reiterate the recommendation
that the amounts due from the Corporation will be
determined only with respect to those employees who
are identifiable and whose entitlement can be proved
on the evidence and that in the event the record is not
available with the Corporation (at this belated stage), it
would not be obliged to explain its loss, or that any
adverse inference be drawn on this score. With this
very small modification, we dismiss the appeals.”

In Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648,
the Supreme Court held:-
“8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would
affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High
Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears
relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It
ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to

10

only three years before the date of writ petition, or from
the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever
was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on
arrears in such circumstances.”

15. Hence, the Writ petitions may be allowed and the purported re-hearing
of the proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund
(Miscellaneous Provision) Act, 1952, on the order dated 2nd June 2023
passed by the Learned Appellate Authority in Appeal No. EPF-09 of
2012 and the impugned notice dated 6th September, 2023 being set-
aside.
16. The case in gist is that a complaint was received from the General
Secretary of Bally Jute Company Limited Shamik Sangthan dated
20.01.2009 and 26.05.2011 regarding non deposit of deducted
Provident Fund Contribution in respect of 800 workers for the period
from 1993 to 1996 by the establishment "Bally Jute Company Limited"
having P.F. Code WB/81. The Hon'ble Presiding Officer, CGIT, Kolkata
Bench dated 02.06.2023 remanded the case back to the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner for conducting fresh enquiry and decide
the case related to the complaint filed by the General Secretary about
non extension of P.F. benefit of around 800 employees. The CGIT held
that 7A was concluded vide order dated 24.05.2012 stating that the
issue of eligibility of membership not decided for lack of
evidence/materials & no determination of dues also made.

11

17. The management of Bally Jute Co. Ltd. states that during the period,
the Bally Jute was under the control of Birla Corporation Ltd. and the
present management has taken over the Mill on April, 1997.
18. Birla Corporation states that liability under Section 17B is applicable to
the present management of Bally Jute Co. Ltd., Section 17B of the
EPF Act lays down:-
“17B. Liability in case of transfer of
establishment.—
Where an employer, in relation to an
establishment, transfers that establishment in whole or
in part, by sale, gift, lease or licence or in any other
manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to
whom the establishment is so transferred shall jointly
and severally be liable to pay the contribution and
other sums due from the employer under any provision
of this Act or the Scheme or the Pension. Scheme or the
Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, in respect of
the period up to the date of such transfer:
Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be
limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by
such transfer.”
19. Liability in case of transfer of establishment - Where an employer, in
relation to an establishment, transfers that establishment in whole or in
part, by sale, gift, lease or license or in any other manner whatsoever,
the employer and the person to whom the establishment is so
transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the
contribution and other sums due from the employer under any
provision of this Act or the Scheme or the Pension Scheme or the
Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, in respect of the period up to
the date of such transfer.

12

20. In the proceeding being conducted afresh, on the direction of the
tribunal, notice under Section 7A of the Act for determination of dues in
respect of the aforesaid workers who are eligible for PF & allied benefits
for the period from 01/1993 to 12/1996 under EPF and MP Act, 1952,
was issued to the establishment "Bally Jute Company Limited" & the
complainant Shri Birbal Roy with the direction to appear in hearing on
05.09.2023.
21. During the course of hearing on 05.09.2023, the representative of Bally
Jute Company Limited stated that the purported time of non-payment
of PF dues i.e. from 1993 to 1996 pertains to the previous employer viz.
M/s. Birla Corporation Limited and prayed for including M/s. Birla
Corporation Limited as an added party.
22. As per the direction of the Learned Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, Kolkata, the proceeding (afresh) under Section 7A is going on,
so it is prayed that by the private respondent that the writ is thus not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
23. On hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, the
following is evident:-

1) On 24.05.2012, the regional provident fund commissioner passed
an order under Section 7A of the Act of 1952, holding inter alia
that the dispute as regards the status of the apprentices be
decided by the appropriate authority under the industrial
employment (standing orders) Act, 1947.

13

24. The private respondent no. 2 appealed before the CGIT and the order of
remand has been passed, where the hearing is in progress.
25. The RPF authority vide it’s order dated 24.05.2012 held:-
“…………As far as deciding the status of alleged workers as
employees under EPF & MP Act, 1952 and determination of
contribution due is concerned, I feel that until and unless the
dispute regarding learners/apprentice is resolved,
we
cannot proceed further to determine dues and at this stage
present employer who has taken over establishment after
period of alleged non-enrollment cannot be held responsible for
production of relevant records as the complaint has been made
after at least 13 years despite the fact that complainant is a
workers union leader and allegedly victim of non-enrollment.
Further, the complainant Sri Birbal Rai has failed to submit
sufficient material to enable undersigned in dealing with the
issue. In fact he has not provided any evidence to support his
complaint i.e. (1) he failed to provide details of alleged non-
enrolled workers, (2) he failed to provide basis for his claim of
contribution due amounting to Rs.7 crore. In fact though Sri Rai
has first complained in January, 2009 with claim that he has
all the evidence to support his complain, he could produce only
a list of employees with ESI No. that too obtained from ESIC
Office during proceedings dated 17/10/2011 & 15/11/2011
and copies of some wage slips for the period showing wages of
a few hundred rupees per month.
Hence, as far as determination of contribution due in respect of
eligible employees is concerned, Sri Birbal Rai is advised to get
the dispute of learner/apprentice decided by approaching
the competent authority under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 as already done
by management and if it is decided by the competent
authority decides that the said workers were not
learners/apprentice then to approach EPF authorities
with reasonable supporting documents i.e. proof
regarding period of work and wages earned for necessary
action at this end.
It is also made clear here that no reference is being made to the
competent authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing

14

Order) Act to resolve the dispute regarding status of alleged
non-enrolled workers as apprentice/learner as under Section
13A of the said Act only employer or workers/workers
representative can make a reference to the Authority………”

26. Review under Section 7B of the Act was also rejected/dismissed.
27. The petitioner Bally Jute Co. Ltd. then made an application to the
Additional Labour Commissioner, West Bengal for clarification of the
following queries:-
“1. Whether the validity of Certified Standing Orders in respect
of Jute Industry is in order or not.
2. Whether the Jute Industry can engage the learners /
Apprentices in terms of the Provisions laid down in the
Certified Standing Orders or not.”
28. The Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946 & Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal,
responded as follows:-
“1. As per Rule 4 of the Bengal Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Rules, 1946, the Standing Orders were
certified by the Certifying Officer, Government of West Bengal,
for the Jute Industries. As per rule 4(d), such establishment
shall continue to be governed by the Group Standing Orders
until such time as it submits separate Draft Standing Orders
of its own and has it duly certified;
2. As per clause 2(g) of the Certified Standing Orders, Jute
Industry can engage apprentice.”
29. The private respondent no. 2’s appeal EPF 09 of 2012 was disposed of
on 12.10.2022 directing as follows:-
“…….. Accordingly, E.P.F Appeal No. 9 of 2012 is
allowed. Matter is sent back on remand for causing fresh

15

enquiry and inspection and by following the provision of
Section 7A (2) of the Act by recording the evidence of the
representative, Union and Management under oath and
requiring them to produce the documents for inspection
and discovery as provided in Code of Civil Procedure.
The R.P.F.C.II S.R.O. Howrah is directed to complete
the enquiry and inspection on complaint within three
months from the date hereof and pass necessary orders
within two months thereof.”
30. It appears from the order under Section 7A of the Act dated 25.05.2012,
that the authority has noted as follows:-
“………During the course of hearing held on 17/05/2012,
both the representatives of establishment and union had
stated that have nothing to submit any documents and
they have already submitted their submissions, the
proceedings concluded and order were reserved for
issuance on or before 31/05/2012………”
31. Subsequently the respondent no. 2 placed documents which related to
the payment etc. for the period from 2005 -2010 (not the period under
consideration).
32. It is seen that the parties have already adduced evidence by producing
relevant documents and examined several witnesses.
33. The authority also observed:-
“……..Sri Birbal Rai has claimed that every worker has
earned monthly wages of Rs.6,500/- for the period 1993 to

16

1996 and if it were to be accepted as true, these workers
will automatically become excluded employees as during
relevant period wage ceiling was much less than
Rs.6,500/- for eligibility to become P.F. member. The wage
ceiling was Rs.3,500/- for the period 01/11/1990 to
30/09/1994, Rs.5,000/- for the period 01/10/1994 to
31/05/2001 and is Rs.6,500/- from 01/06/2001
onwards……….
…………From the examination of list of employees with
their date of membership of ESIC and PF, it is clear that
they have been enrolled as P.F. member much after their
membership in ESIC and to that extent, allegation of
complainant is correct that the workers were not extended
P.F. benefit from their date of joining. However, employer
has explained this gap by claiming that these workers
were engaged as learners and hence were extended ESIC
benefit from their date of joining and P.F. benefit were
extended only after their confirmation as employee as per
the provision of the EPF & MP Act, 1952.
The contention of employer that complain is false
appears to be convincing in absence of any complaints
from any quarter including the complainant Sri Birbal Rai
who himself joined as learners during the relevant period
for 16 years and no observation from inspecting
authorities of EPFO despite regular inspections and
verification of records and as to why Sri Birbal Rai himself
failed to complain when he joined the establishment in
12/1993 as per ESIC records but extended P.F.
membership only in 04/1996.

17

On the other hand, at least 3 operating union
representatives of the establishment have submitted letters
stating that complain is false and that workers were
engaged as learners during the period and hence no
complain.
Hence, in the light of above, it is appear to be highly
unlikely that at a stretch 800 workers were not extended
P.F. benefit and nobody raised a finger despite presence of
so many unions with national affiliation.
Further, there was and is a valid standing order for
the establishment and the said standing order provides for
engagement of workers as learners is an established fact
and also accepted by the complainant vide his letter dated
15/12/2011…………..”
34. Vide a well reasoned order the authority on proper appreciation of
evidence on record held:-
“………..The only contradiction is that the complainant
submit that learners can only be freshers from I.T.I.s
and can be paid stipends but not wages, however, the
standing order does not elaborate on the nature of
learners of his service conditions or period of
learnership and at Para 2(g) simply states that "An
apprentice is a learner who is paid an allowance
during the period of training". Thus the issue of learner
can be subject to different interpretations and hence is
disputed.
However, as pointed by employer, the competent
authority to decide the question as to application or
interpretation of a standing order certified under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946.
(Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Dispute
Act and the question may be referred to such Court by

18

any employer or workmen or a trade union or other
representative body of workmen).
Hence, the question regarding status of workers
as learners or otherwise engaged by the establishment
for the period 1993 to 1996 has already been referred
to the competent authority by the establishment, the
complainant may also raise the issue before the
competent authority to decide the issue of status of
alleged workers as learners or not.
Further, every employees of a covered
establishment is eligible to become member of P.F.
except those who are excluded on account of monthly
wages above wage ceiling, but apprentices under the
Apprentice Act and under standing order of an
establishment are not employees.
(Section 2(f)ii of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 states
employee means "engaged as an apprentice, not being
an apprentice engaged under the Apprentice Act, 1961
(52 of 1961) or under the standing orders of the
establishment").
Hence, until and unless these alleged workers
are declared not to be learners under the standing
order of the establishment, they will not come under
category of employee and hence will not be eligible to
be member of P.F.
From the above discussion following emerges:-
a) The alleged worker's status as employee is
under dispute i.e. if they are learner then they cannot
be employee under EPF & MP Act and thus will not be
eligible for any benefit under the Act. This dispute
regarding status as learners/apprentice or otherwise
can be resolved only by competent authority under
Section 13A of Industrial Employment (Standing Order)
Act, 1946 i.e. designated labour court but not be any
authority under EPF & MP Act.

19

b) If it is decided that they are not
learners/apprentice and thus if come under definition
of employee under EPF & MP Act may still be treated
as excluded employees on account of drawing monthly
wages of Rs.6,500/- per month against the wage
ceiling of Rs.3,500/- upto September, 1994 and
Rs.5,000/-from October, 1994 to May, 2011, if
contention/claim of complainant Sri Birbal Rai is
accepted.
c) It is evident from the wage slips submitted by
Sri Rai the actual wages drawn by the workers in the
range of Rs.150/- to Rs.650/- and hence the claim of
Sri Rai that each employee earned a wage of
Rs.6,500/- is without truth and hence his claim of
contribution due of Rs.7 Crore cannot be true and at
most it will be a fraction of the alleged amount, still
contribution due in respect of each worker can not be
calculated in absence of details of their period of work
and wages earned.
Now, in the light of above, 1 declare the complain
of Sri Birbal Rai made first vide his letter dated
12/01/2009 to the effect that (a) employee share of
P.F.
Contribution was deducted but not deposited; (b)
that all alleged workers worked for equal period i.e.
1993 to 1996 and earned wages of Rs.6,500/- per
month and; (c) that contribution is about Rs.7 crore to
be false and baseless……..”
35. The CGIT sent the matter on remand finding fault with the order under
Section 7A of Act, but did not return any finding on the RPF
authority’s final direction:-
“Hence, as far as determination of contribution due in
respect of eligible employees is concerned, Sri Birbal Rai is
advised to get the dispute of learner/apprentice decided
by approaching the competent authority under the

20

Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 as
already done by management and if it is decided by the
competent authority decides that the said workers were
not learners/apprentice then to approach EPF authorities
with reasonable supporting documents i.e. proof regarding
period of work and wages earned for necessary action at
this end.
It is also made clear here that no reference is being made
to the competent authority under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Order) Act to resolve the dispute
regarding status of alleged non-enrolled workers as
apprentice/learner as under Section 13A of the said Act
only employer or workers/workers representative can
make a reference to the Authority.”

36. The CGIT also acted illegally by not considering the fact that
several witnesses were examined and documents relied upon by the
RPF authority.
37. The CGIT disbelieved the total materials taken into consideration by
RPF authority, but without taking into consideration as to the direction
of the RPF authorities directing the parties to approach the appropriate
authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, a
direction which this Court finds is in accordance with law.
38. Thus the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata in appeal no. EPF 09 of 2012,
being not in accordance with law is quashed and set aside.
39. Parties to act as per the direction of the RPF authority in its order dated
24.05.2012 under Section 7A of the Act by approaching the appropriate
authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act.

21

40. WPA 18750 of 2023 with WPA 22721 of 2023 are allowed.
41. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of
consequently.
42. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
43. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to
the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.


(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)