Full Judgment Text
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 1/56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5154 OF 2016
PETITIONER : Sanmitra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Akola, a registered Coop. Society,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.
Rammanohar Jamanlal Lohiya, Age 60
yrs., Ramdespeth, Akola, Tq. and Distt.
Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
SubRegional Office, 15B Raghuraj
Arced, Civil Lines, Akola, Tq. and Dist.
Akola.
2. Employees Provident Fund Appellate
th
Tribunal, 4 floor, Core 2, SCOPE Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 142 OF 2014
PETITIONER : Shri Keshav Urban Credit CoOp. Society
Ltd, Shegaon, Regd. No. 955/94, Office
Near Bus Stand, Shegaon, Distt–
Buldhana.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:07 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 2/56
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Assist. Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office Of Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, SubRegional Office,
Akola.
Shri N.R.Saboo, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2011
PETITIONER : M/s Baheti Automobiles, Near Shivaji
Park, Akola Through its Partner Shri
Kamalkishore Fulchand Baheti.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Employees” Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. Assistant Provident Fund Committee,
S.R.O., Nagpur, 132A, Ridge Road,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur – 440 009.
Shri N.R.Saboo, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2011
PETITIONER : The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari
Bank Limited, The Cooperative Bank,
registered under the Maharashtra Co
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:07 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 3/56
operative Societies Act, 1960, having its
registered office at Jawahar Road,
Amravati, through its Chief Executive
Officer, Shri Subhash S/o Shamrao
Mahure.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate
th
Tribunal, Scope Minar CoreII, 4 Floor,
Laxmi Nagar District Center, Laxmi
Nagar, New Delhi – 110092.
2. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub Region Office, Sant
Tukadoji Square, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1106 OF 2009
PETITIONER : Wardha Nagri Sahakari Adhikosh (Bank)
Ltd., Office at Madhav Bhavan, Dr. J.C.
Kumarappa Marg, Wardha, Through its
Chief Executive Officer.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : The Regional Provident Funds
Commissioner Office of Employees
Provident Funds Organization, SRO 132
A Ringe Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Square,
Nagpur.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 4/56
Shri S.S.Ghate, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1125 OF 2014
PETITIONER : The Akola Merchant Cooperative Bank
Ltd., Akola, through its Manager Mr.Dilip
Babarao, Gohad, Aged about 37 years,
occ. Service, Nisarg Plaza, Damle
Chowk, Hanuman Basti, Akola, Tq. and
Distt. Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
SubRegional Office, 15B Raghuraj
Arced, Civil Lines, Akola, Tq. and Dist.
Akola.
2. Employees Provident Fund Appellate
th
Tribunal, 4 Floor, Core 2, SCOPE Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3507 OF 2013
PETITIONER : 1. The Central Board of Trustees, Employees
Provident Fund , Having Office at
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 5/56
place, New Delhi110066, Through the
Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization.
2. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Chowk, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : The Agrasen Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Akola, A Registered Coop. Society duly
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Coop. Societies Act,
through its Manager, Gandhi Road,
Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola (M.S.).
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3654 OF 2010
PETITIONERS : 1. The Central Board of Trustee through
The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub Regional Office,
Raghuraj Arcade, Civil Lines, Akola.
Deleted as per order 2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
dtd.20.11.2014 Provident Fund, Mal Tekdi Road,
Amravati (M.S.).
...VERSUS...
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 6/56
RESPONDENT : M/s Abhinandan Urban Cooperative
Bank Ltd., Prabhat Chowk, Amravati,
Taluka & Dist. Amravati.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri A.P.Wachasunder, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3882 OF 2014
PETITIONERS : 1. Anuradha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
having its head office at Shivaji Chowk,
Chikhli, District Buldhana – 443 201.
Registration No. BLD/BNK/01/03/9899,
through the Chief Executive Officer.
2. Pandnarinath Anandrao Tekade, Chief
Executive Officer, Anuradha Urban
Cooperative Bank Ltd., Shivaji Chowk,
Chikhli, District Buldhana – 443 201.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
SubRegional Office, Akola, Taluka and
District Akola.
Shri M.V.Samarth, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 7/56
WRIT PETITION NO. 4926 OF 2003
PETITIONER : The Anjangaon – Surji Nagari Sahakari
Bank Limited, A Cooperative Bank
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
1960, having its Registered Office at
Shaniwarpeth Anjangaon – Surji, District
Amravati, through its Chief Executive
Officer Shri Narendra Tiwari.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, SubRegional Office, 132
A Ridge Road, Sant Tukdoji Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.
2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
Provident Fund, Maltekdi Road, Krushi
Lodge, District Amravati.
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5032 OF 2003
PETITIONER : The Amravati Merchants' Cooperative
Bank Limited, A Cooperative Bank
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
1960, having its Registered Office at
Merchants' Chamber, Ambapeth, Badnera
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 8/56
Road, District Amravati444 601, through
its Chief Executive Officer Shri
Narayanrao S/o Shankarrao Vidhale.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, SubRegional Office, 132
A Ridge Road, Sant Tukdoji Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.
2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
Provident Fund, Maltekdi Road, Krushi
Lodge, District Amravati.
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, counsel for Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5226 OF 2009
PETITIONER : The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Office of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, 132A,
Ridge Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Jagruti Bigar Shetaki Pat Purwatha
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Mandikota, Tahsil
Tiroda, District Gondia.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 9/56
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri S.R.Bhongade, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5566 OF 2010
PETITIONERS : 1. The Central Board of Trustee through
The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Chowk, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
Deleted as per order 2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
dtd.20.11.2014 Provident Fund, Mal Tekdi Road,
Amravati (M.S.).
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : The Vasant Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha
Maryadit, Cotton Market Yard, Akot,
through its Manager Dinesh Purushottam
Rathi, R/o Akot, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri A.J.Thakkar, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5576 OF 2015
PETITIONERS : 1. Bharti Maind Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha,
Jagdamba Apartment, Moti Nagar, Pusad,
District Yavatmal, through its President
Shri Apparao Maind, aged 64 years, r/o
Tilak Ward, Pusad, District Yavatmal.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 10/56
2. Gajanan Ramkrishna Nakade, aged 39
yrs, occ. Branch Manager, r/o Govind
Nagar, Pusad, District Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Central Board of Trustees, a Board
Corporate constituted under Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, having its
registered office at Bhavishya Nidhi
Bhavan, Bikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi
110 066, through Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional
Office, 15B, Raghuraj Aircad, Civil
Lines, Akola.
2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
O/o Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, subregional office, 15B,
Raghuraj Aircad, Civil Lines, Akola.
Shri R.G.Kavimandam, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5667 OF 2009
PETITIONER : Shattarka Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha,
Maryadit Nagpur 15 Through its Chief
Manager.
...VERSUS...
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 11/56
RESPONDENT : Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner,
Office of Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, SRO 132A, Ridge Road
Tukdoji Maharaj Chowk, Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur.
Shri S.S.Ghate, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6149 OF 2011
PETITIONER : The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank
Limited, The cooperative Bank, registered
under the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960, having its registered
office at Jawahar Road, Amravati,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Shri
Subhash S/o Shamrao Mahure.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub Region Office, 15B, Raghuraj
Arkade, Civil Lines, Akola 444 001.
Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2005
PETITIONER : Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office of the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Square, Raghujinagar, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 12/56
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha
Maryadit, Akola, through its Chief
Manager, Mr Vimlesh Syamsunder
Pande, aged about 35 years, Occupation
Service, R/o Alankar Market, Tilak Road,
Akola.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Respondent.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 28.02.2019.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 25.04.2019.
J U D G M E N T
Heard.
2. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. These writ
petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 13/56
3. This group of writ petitions, filed by the banks
(employer) as also by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
challenge orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal as also the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, pertaining to the question as to whether pigmy
agents/collection agents appointed by the banks for collection of
small deposit amounts could be covered under the provisions of
the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1952”) and whether the
Provident Fund Commissioner could enquire into the applicability
of the Act of 1952 on such banks and if so, the liability of the
banks under the provisions of the Act of 1952.
4. Since common questions arise in the present petitions,
the said questions are being decided first and then individual writ
petitions will be dealt with.
5. On behalf of the banks, learned counsel led by Mr.R.L.
Khapre contended that in view of the award of the Industrial
Tribunal at Hyderabad concerning specific question referred to the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 14/56
said Tribunal by the Central Government, which stood modified by
the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indian
Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others ,
reported in 1988 (1) LLJ 233 and such modified award stood
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the
case of Indian Bank Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank ,
reported in (2001) 3 SCC 36 , there was no scope for the
Provident Fund Commissioner to argue that the pigmy agents/
collection agents of the banks were covered under the provisions
of the Act of 1952. It was contended that the said service condition
of entitlement towards provident fund upon being covered under
the provisions of the Act of 1952 stood rejected by the aforesaid
modified award, confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
that such an award had binding force under section 18(3)(d) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of
1947”), thereby showing that the Act of 1952 was not applicable
and the contentions raised on behalf of the banks deserved to be
allowed. It was specifically contended that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court categorically held in the case of Punjab National Bank and
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 15/56
Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. , reported in (2006) 8 SCC 647 that
once such an award on a reference made by the Central
Government pertaining to an establishment had attained finality,
it was binding on all parties and the same could not be reopened.
6. On this basis, it was contended that the reliance
placed on the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident
Fund Organization , reported in 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 436 and 2017
(2) Mh.L.J. 946 in writ petition and review petition as also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik
Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner II , (Civil Appeal No.15680 of 2017, decided on
05/10/2017) was misplaced because the said contention
pertaining to binding nature of the award confirmed up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, was not brought to the notice of the
Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
On this basis, it was contended that the judgments and orders
passed in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 16/56
Employees Provident Fund Organization and Nashik Merchant
Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
II (supra) were per incuriam and not binding on this Court.
Alternatively, it was submitted that this Court ought to refer the
said question to Full Bench of this Court for resolution.
7. In this regard, reliance was placed by the learned
counsel appearing for the banks on various judgments pertaining
to the concept of ratio decidendi of a judgment, per incuriam
judgments and the fact that even a learned Single Judge of this
Court could directly refer a matter to the Full Bench of this Court
for consideration on certain issues.
8. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the
Provident Fund Commissioner led by Mr. R.S.Sundaram and Mr.
H.N.Verma, submitted that there was no substance in the
contention raised on behalf of the banks. It was submitted that
the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 17/56
Organization (supra) had been specifically confirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative
Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra)
and that the said judgments of this Court had remanded similar
matters concerning identical questions to the Authorities under the
Act of 1952 for consideration and further that in the review
judgment of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.Bank
Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) specific
parameters for assessment of questions were laid down by this
Court for the guidance of the Authorities. It was submitted that in
such a situation, the banks as well as the authorities under the Act
of 1952 had ample opportunity to place on record material for the
Authorities to answer all questions, including the question of
applicability of the Act to the banks, upon remand of the cases. It
was submitted that the said judgments of the Division Bench of
this Court, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were
clearly applicable to the present cases and that the Provident Fund
Commissioner, who was the petitioner in some petitions and the
respondent in others before this Court, conceded to the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 18/56
requirement of all the matters being remanded to the Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh on the parameters
laid down in the review judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees
Provident Fund Organization (supra).
9. On the contention raised on behalf of the banks that
the pigmy agents/collections agents were not covered under the
provisions of the Act of 1952 on the basis of binding force of the
award under the provisions of the Act of 1947, confirmed up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the said
contention was of no avail, because upon remand, the question of
applicability of the Act of 1952 would certainly be gone into by the
Tribunal and the power and authority of the concerned
officers/authorities under the provisions of the Act of 1952 could
not be taken away by the said interpretation put forth on behalf of
the banks. On the question of per incuriam or the necessity to
refer the matters to Full Bench of this Court, it was submitted that
the same was not necessary, in view of the fact that similar cases
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 19/56
had been already remanded to the Authorities by a Division Bench
of this Court, as confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
there was no conflict or dispute regarding any question of law that
arose in the present matter, warranting reference of the present
cases to a Full Bench for consideration and resolution. The
learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P.and
others v. M. R. Apparao and another , reported in (2002) 4 SCC
638 to contend that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) specifically used the words
“We are of the view that the entitlement of the employees to be
covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs to be decided in
the light of the aforesaid laid down parameters.” , it became clear
that the order of remand passed in the judgments in the writ
petition and review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.
v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) had received the
stamp of approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that in the
present cases also an order of remand was required to be passed,
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 20/56
so that the contentions of the rival parties could be decided on the
basis of the specific parameters laid down in the review judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples'
Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed on record. The question as to whether pigmy
agents/collection agents of banks were entitled for reliefs as
workmen, was subject matter of the aforesaid reference made by
the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad.
The question referred to the Tribunal by the Central Government
for adjudication under the provisions of the Act of 1947, was as
follows :
“Whether the demands of the Commission Agents or
as the case may be Deposit Collectors Employed in
the Banks listed in the Annexure that they are
entitled to pay scales, allowances and other service
conditions available to regular clerical employees of
those banks is justified? If not, to what relief are the
workmen concerned entitled and from which date?”
11. The Tribunal, answered the reference by holding that
such collection agents below the age of 45 years as on
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 21/56
03/10/1980 shall be considered for regular absorption for the post
of clerks and cashier in the banks and they could be taken as legal
employees if they passed qualifying examination to be conducted
by the banks and it was further held that those collection agents,
who were above the age of 45 years on the said date and were
unwilling to be absorbed in the service of the banks, they shall be
paid fall back wages of Rs.750/ per month and further that they
would be entitled to certain incentive remuneration, in addition to
payment of gratuity of 15 days commission for each year of service
rendered. In the process of reaching to the said conclusions, the
Tribunal categorically found that the collection agents were
employees of the bank and there was a relationship of master and
servant or employer and employee. It was also stated by the
Tribunal that the collection agents cannot claim any provident
fund or pension but they could pray for gratuity as mentioned
above.
12. The said award of the Tribunal was challenged before
the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by the judgment and order
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 22/56
dated 28/03/1997 passed by the High Court in the case of Indian
Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others
(supra), the High Court held that the finding of the Tribunal
regarding collection agents being workmen of the respective banks
was correct, but the direction for absorption of the collection
agents in the service of the banks, who were below the age of 45
years was not sustainable. The High Court did uphold the other
direction of the Tribunal pertaining to fall back wages, conveyance
allowance, incentive remuneration and gratuity.
13. The said award was in turn challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was decided in the said judgment in
the case of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate
Bank and others (supra), wherein the award as modified by the
High Court was upheld and hence, the finding that the collection
agents were indeed workmen, attained finality.
14. It is the case of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the banks before this Court that the facts regarding the
details of the award passed by the Tribunal as modified and
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 23/56
confirmed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court were
not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court when
the judgments were rendered in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) in the
writ petition and review petition. On this basis, it was contended
that even if the judgments in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) were
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik
Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner II (supra), such judgments were on a concession
given by the counsel agreeing to remand of the matters before the
Authorities under the Act of 1952 and that being in ignorance of
the said position of law regarding binding effect of award under
section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, the judgments in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra) were per incuriam and not binding on this
Court. As noted above, alternatively, it was submitted that this
aspect was required to be referred to a Full Bench of this Court.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 24/56
15. In order to consider the said contentions raised on
behalf of the banks, it would be necessary to first refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab
National Bank and Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. (supra), on
which much reliance has been placed on behalf of the banks on
the aspect of binding force of the said award of the Tribunal on
reference made by the Central Government, as modified by the
High Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and
others (supra). A perusal of the said judgment, shows that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and
Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. (supra) in paragraph 17, has held
as follows :
“17. In an industrial dispute referred to by the
Central Government which has an all-India
implication, individual workmen cannot be made
party to a reference. All of them are not expected to
be heard. The unions representing them were
impleaded as parties. They were heard. Not only
were the said unions heard before the High Court, as
noticed hereinbefore from a part of the judgment of
the High Court, they had preferred appeals before
this Court, Their contentions had been noticed by
this Court. As the award was made in presence of
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 25/56
the unions, in our opinion, the contention of
respondents that the award was not binding on them
cannot be accepted. The principles of natural justice
were also not required to be complied with as the
same would have been an empty formality. The court
will not insist on compliance of the principles of
natural justice in view of the binding nature of the
award. Their application would be limited to a
situation where the factual position or legal
implication arising thereunder is disputed and not
where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If
only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not
issue only because there was a violation of the
principles of natural justice.”
16. The emphasis in the said judgment was on the fact
that there was no necessity to issue separate notice to employees
of banks and establishments, who stood covered under the
aforesaid reference made by the Central Government before the
Tribunal at Hyderabad. In the context of the argument raised on
behalf of the employees therein that they were entitled to issuance
of separate notice and adherence to principles of natural justice
when the bank intended to take steps as per the modified award, it
was held that under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, award
pronounced on a reference made by the Central Government was
binding on all parties, including workmen in such establishments
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 26/56
to whom the award pertained. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in earlier judgments in the case of National Engineering India Ltd.
v. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371 and Kapra
Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills
Ltd.and another, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777 had reiterated
the binding nature of the award under section 18(3)(d) of the Act
of 1947 on the basis that for maintenance of industrial peace, such
awards are required to be held as binding on all the employees
and establishments.
17. But, a perusal of para 17 of the judgment in the case
of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. (supra)
quoted above, shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
reiterating binding nature of the award under the aforesaid
provisions, has observed that the principles of natural justice
would still apply to a situation where the factual position or legal
implication arising is disputed and not where it is not in dispute or
cannot be disputed. It is further held that if only one conclusion
was possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 27/56
violation of principles of natural justice. These observations in the
very same judgment are relevant for the present case. This is
because the present case concerns notices issued by Authorities
under the provisions of the Act of 1952 regarding applicability of
the provisions of the said Act and hence, contributions liable to be
paid by the banks as well as the collection agents, in the respective
facts of the individual cases. This necessarily encompasses the
question of power of the Authorities under the provisions of the
Act of 1952 to take steps as are necessary to fulfill the object of the
Act of 1952.
18. In this context, the nature of observations made by
the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad shows that the main question
considered by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 1947
was, as to whether collection agents of banks were workmen as
defined under the Act of 1947 and whether there was relationship
of employer and employee between the banks and the collection
agents. This is evident from paragraph 43 of the award of the
Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad. The entire discussion in the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 28/56
award is centered around the aforesaid question specified in
paragraph 43 of the award and it is on the basis of conclusions
rendered on the said question that the final directions and findings
are given in paragraph 69 of the award, details of which have been
already noted above. There is an observation in paragraph 68 of
the award that according to the member of the Industrial Tribunal,
it was felt that the collection agents could not claim provident
fund or pension, but the positive findings rendered in paragraph
69 pertained only to the question as to whether the collection
agents could be said to be workmen and employees of the banks.
The question, therefore, is whether the observation made in
paragraph 68 of the award, in the absence of any analysis would
successfully and permanently restrain the Authorities under the
Act of 1952 to even enter into the question as to whether the said
Act was applicable to the collection agents, who were found to be
workmen and employees of the banks.
19. In this context, section 7A of the Act of 1952 becomes
significant, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 29/56
“[7-A. Determination of moneys due from
employers. – [(1) The Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund
Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner or any Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, may, by order, –
(a) in a case where a dispute arises
regarding the applicability of this Act to an
establishment, decide such dispute; and
(b) determine the amount due from any
employer under any provisions of this Act, the
Scheme or the [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance
Scheme, as the case may be,
and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct
such inquiry as he may deem necessary.]”
20. The above quoted portion shows that even in a case
where dispute arises regarding the applicability of the Act of 1952
to an establishment, such a dispute also has to be decided by the
Provident Fund Commissioner. This shows that power and
jurisdiction of the Provident Fund Commissioner under section 7A
(1)(a) of the Act of 1952 encompasses the fundamental question
as to whether the Act of 1952 can even be applied to a particular
establishment. This Court is of the opinion that the observation
made in paragraph 68 of the award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal at Hyderabad in a reference made by the Central
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 30/56
Government under the provisions of the Act of 1947, cannot take
away the aforesaid power of the Provident Fund Commissioner
under section 7A(1)(a) of the Act of 1952 to decide as to whether
the provisions of the Act of 1952 would apply to the banks/
establishments in the present cases. If such an interpretation was
permitted, the very object of the Act of 1952 would be frustrated.
It is important that the banks in the present case are seeking to
stall an enquiry under the provisions of the Act of 1952 at the
threshold by relying upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding binding nature of the award under
section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, but the same cannot be
permitted.
21. In this context, the judgments of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) assume
significance, because a perusal of the specific parameters laid
down by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
review shows that the Authorities under the Act of 1952 have been
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 31/56
directed to make enquiry based on material including appointment
orders/contract letters/agreement between the banks and the
collection agents, as also to enquire as to whether the banks have
been paying wages disguised as commission to the collection
agents. Thus, the orders of remand passed by the Division Bench
of this Court do not lead to the conclusion that the banks have
been held to be liable or covered under the provisions of the Act of
1952, but detailed enquiry has been directed to be conducted by
the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of 1952 to ascertain
whether the banks could be covered under the provisions of the
Act of 1952. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce the
parameters specified by the Division Bench of this Court in the
review judgment in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
“32 We are, therefore, of the view that the
following factors must be considered by the EPF
Authorities in such cases :-
(a) The EPF Authorities should collect necessary
documents by inspection of records of the
Establishment/ Industry.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 32/56
(b) A direction to the Management to produce the
documents as may be found necessary, should
be issued whenever the EPF Authorities realize
that the Management is holding back certain
documents.
(c) The appointment orders/ contract letters or
agreements in between the Banks and the pigmy
agents/ deposit collectors should be made
available for scrutiny and should be taken into
consideration.
(d) Based on the above documents, the EPF
Authorities must adjudicate on the following
aspects:-
(i) Whether, the contracts/ appointment
orders have a semblance of employer-employee
relationship?
(ii) Whether, there is supervision, control and
direction of the Bank over such agents?
(iii) Whether, these agents are under an
obligation to work only for a particular Bank or
it's Branches?
(iv) Whether, these agents are permitted to
work elsewhere or undertake any other business,
job, profession or calling?
(v) Whether, such agents are primarily
dependent upon the work of collecting deposits
for a particular Establishment?
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 33/56
(e) Interrogate the pigmy depositors to elucidate
information about their exact nature of duties.
(f) Based on the documents and an analysis upon
considering the above mentioned factors, the
APFC will have to arrive at a conclusion
supported by reasons that such pigmy agents can
be termed as "workmen" and share employer-
employee relationship with the Bank and are
being paid wages disguised as commission. The
said commission amount would then be termed
as basic wages under Section 2(b) of the EPF
Act.”
22. In this backdrop, it becomes clear that there is no
substance in the contention raised on behalf of the banks that due
to binding nature of award of the Industrial Tribunal at
Hyderabad, as modified by the High Court and confirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of
1947, even the initiation of enquiry based on the said parameters
laid down by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be
undertaken.
23. It is also relevant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 34/56
Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) upheld the said parameters
laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the said review
orders by holding as follows:
“3. The order of the High Court taking the
aforesaid view seems to be primarily based on an
th
earlier decision of the High Court dated 7
February, 2014 in the case of The Pachora Peoples'
Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. The Employees Provident
Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Govt. of
India) [rendered in Writ Petition No.5086 of 2011
(Aurangabad Bench)]. It has been brought to the
notice of the Court by the learned counsels for the
appellants that the decision in The Pachora
Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra) was subjected to
a review before the High Court. Though the review
petition was dismissed, a view was taken by the
High Court that as hundreds of such disputes/cases
are pending before the EPF Authorities and the
High Court, certain parameters should be laid
down by the High Court to govern the exercise of
power in this regard by the EPF authorities under
the Act of 1952. The High Court on a
consideration of the matter deemed it proper to lay
down the following parameters:
“(a) The EPF authorities should collect necessary
documents by inspection of records of the
Establishment/Industry.
(b) A direction to the Management to produce the
documents as may be found necessary should be
issued whenever the EPF authorities realize that
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 35/56
the Management is holding back certain
documents.
(c) The appointment orders/contract letters or
agreements in between the Banks and the pigmy
agents/deposit collectors should be made available
for scrutiny and should be taken into
consideration.
(d) Based on the above documents, the EPF
authorities must adjudicate on the following
aspects:
(i) Whether, the contracts/appointment orders
have a semblance of employer-employee
relationship?
(ii) Whether,there is supervision, control and
direction of the Bank over such agents?
(iii) Whether, these agents are under an
obligation to work only for a particular Bank
or it's Branches?
(iv) Whether, these agents are permitted to work
elsewhere or undertake any other business,
job, profession or calling?
(v) Whether, such agents are primarily
dependent upon the work of collecting
deposits for a particular Establishment?
(e) Interrogate the Pigmy depositors to
elucidate information about their exact nature of
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 36/56
duties.
(f) Based on the documents and an analysis upon
considering the above mentioned factors, the APFC
will have to arrive at a conclusion supported by
reasons that such pigmy agents can be termed as
“workmen” and share employer-employee
relationship with the Bank and are being paid
wages disguised as commission. The said
commission amount would then be termed as basic
wages under section 2(b) of the EPF Act.”
4. As in the present case, the judgment of the
High Court impugned in these appeals does not
indicate consideration of any of the aforesaid
parameters and the High Court itself felt that the
matter needs to be dealt with by reference to
specific parameters noticed above, we are of the
view that the entitlement of the employees to be
covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs
to be tested in the light of the aforesaid laid down
parameters. We, therefore, are of the view that in
the facts of the present case it would be proper to
set aside the order of the High Court and remand
the matters for a de novo consideration by the EPF
Authorities in the light of the parameters laid
down by the High Court in its order of review
th
dated 11 January, 2017 in The Pachora Peoples'
Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra), as extracted herein
above.”
24. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the
Provident Fund Commissioner are justified in relying upon the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 37/56
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of
Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao (supra), wherein it has been held
that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court uses words to the effect
“ We are also of the view ” , it amounts to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court approving the view taken by the High Court in a particular
case. The above quoted portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank
Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) shows
that it has been categorically stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that “ We are of the view that the entitlement of the employees
to be covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs to be
decided in the light of the aforesaid laid down parameters. ”
Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao (supra) applies
squarely to the present case and the learned counsel appearing for
the banks were not justified in contending that the said directions
and observations given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner II (supra) were given on a concession of the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 38/56
counsel appearing for the banks in those cases. This Court is of
the opinion that the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court
in Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra) in writ petition and review read with
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik
Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner II (supra), approving the remand order and the
parameters specified by the Division Bench of this Court in the
review judgment, are binding on this Court and, therefore, the
present group of writ petitions needs to be disposed of in that
light. The contentions raised on behalf of the banks that the
judgments in the writ petition and review application in the case
of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra) are per incuriam due to ignorance of the
binding nature of settlement under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of
1947, is found by this Court to be unsustainable. A perusal of the
judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition
and review application in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank
Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) shows that
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 39/56
copious reference and quotations have been made by the Division
Bench of this Court from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of
Syndicate Bank and others (supra), whereby the modified award of
the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad was confirmed. In this
context, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing for the banks in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
State of M.P. , AIR 2011 SC 1989 and other judgments can be no
avail because this Court is of the opinion that the said contention,
which was not raised before the Division Bench of this Court
regarding binding nature of award of the Industrial Tribunal
would have no effect on the findings rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court, as the parameters laid down in the review
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court clearly point to the
fact that no final conclusion has been given regarding the
applicability of the Act of 1952 and only the power of the
Authorities under the Act of 1952 to make enquiry, including
enquiry contemplated under section 7A (1)(a) of the Act of 1952
pertaining to the very applicability of the said Act, has been
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 40/56
recognized. Hence, the said contention regarding the
judgments of the Division Bench of this Court being per incuriam is
rejected.
25. The alternative contention raised on behalf of the
banks, regarding necessity to refer the issues raised on behalf of
the banks for consideration to a Full Bench of this Court, is also
without any substance. This Court has considered the specific
issues raised on behalf of the banks and it is found that the
aforementioned judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees
Provident Fund Organization (supra) and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative
Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra)
cannot be said to be per incuriam and, therefore, there is no
question of any necessity to refer such issues to Full Bench of this
Court. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that even
a learned Single Judge can refer issues for consideration and
decision to a Full Bench of this Court directly, but once this Court
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 41/56
has come to the conclusion that in the present cases there is no
necessity to make such a reference, the said proposition can be of
no assistance to the banks. Therefore, the judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the banks in this context do not need to
be discussed.
26. There is also reference made to judgments of this
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the question as to
what can be said to be ratio decidendi of a judgment, but the said
judgments do not need any discussion or consideration because
this Court has found that the judgments of the Division Bench of
this Court in writ petition and review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization
(supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) lay down a ratio that is
binding on this Court and that there is no question of the said
judgments not being binding, because they were allegedly
rendered on concessions made on behalf of the banks therein.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 42/56
Accordingly, the said contention raised on behalf of the banks is
rejected.
27. It is important to refer to the fact that even while
approving the parameters laid down by the review judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
judgment in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) specifically
directed that the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of 1952
would be at liberty to take decision afresh in the matters after
hearing the contesting parties, who also would be at liberty to
raise all contentions as may be available in law. Therefore, it
becomes clear that if the dispute in the present cases is also
remanded to the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of
1952, to be taken up for consideration on the parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in review
in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees
Provident Fund Organization (supra), all questions would be open
and they would be decided on material that would be placed on
record by rival parties, which could be enquired into by the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 43/56
Authorities as per the mandate of the Act of 1952. Such an enquiry
can certainly not be permitted to be thwarted at the threshold on
the basis of the said argument regarding binding nature of the
award of the Industrial Tribunal under section 18(3)(d) of the Act
of 1947.
28. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion
that the writ petitions in the present case deserve to be partly
allowed and all the cases deserve to be remanded to the Provident
Fund Commissioner for undertaking enquiry under section 7A of
the Act of 1952, on the parameters laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.
v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) quoted above,
including on the question of the applicability of the Act of 1952 to
the banks/employers in the present case as mandated under
section 7A(1)(a) of the Act of 1952. On this basis, the writ
petitions are being disposed of individually herein below:
(1) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5154 of 2016;
Sanmitra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Akola v.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 44/56
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another, is
partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New
Delhi and order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Akola are quashed and set aside. The
dispute is remanded back to the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, Akola to undertake enquiry under
section 7A of the Act of 1952 in the light of the above
quoted parameters specifically laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
(2) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.142 of 2014;
Shri Keshav Urban Credit Coop. Society Ltd., Shegaon
v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola is quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 45/56
Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola for holding fresh
enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 on the
basis of the above quoted parameters laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident
Fund Organization (supra).
(3) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.333 of 2011;
M/s. Baheti Automobiles v. Employees' Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and another, is partly
allowed. The impugned orders dated 09/12/2004 and
31/03/2005 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Nagpur, as also the impugned order
dated 03/09/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal are quashed and set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, Nagpur for holding fresh enquiry
under section 7A of the Act of 1952 by applying the
above quoted parameters laid down by the Division
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 46/56
Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
(4) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1027 of 2011;
The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited v. The
Employees' Assistant Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
and another, is partly allowed. The impugned orders
dated 24/05/2004 and 30/07/2004 passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur as also
the impugned order dated 07/01/2011 passed by the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal are
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
for holding fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of
1952 on the basis of the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 47/56
(5) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1106 of 2009;
Wardha Nagri Sahakari Adhikosh (Bank) Limited v. The
Regional/Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, is
partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
for holding fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of
1952 on the basis of the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra), quoted
above. The prayer made on behalf of the intervener i.e.
the Union of Employees to detag the present writ
petition from the bunch of present writ petitions is
rejected.
(6) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1125 of 2014;
The Akola Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd., Akola v.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 48/56
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another, is
partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola as also
the impugned order passed by the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal are quashed and set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, Akola for holding fresh enquiry
under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the above
quoted parameters laid down by the Division Bench of
this Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co
op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization
(supra), quoted above.
(7) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3507 of 2013;
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. The
Agrasen Nagari Sahakari Bank ltd., Akola, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set
aside. In view of the findings rendered above in this
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 49/56
judgment, the order of the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set aside
with a direction to the said Authority to conduct fresh
enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the
above quoted parameters laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
(8) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3654 of 2010;
The Central Board of Trustees, through The Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Abhinandan
Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., is partly allowed. The
impugned order passed by the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside. In
view of the findings rendered above in this judgment,
the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Nagpur is also quashed and set aside with a direction to
the said Authority to conduct fresh enquiry under
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 50/56
section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted
parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization
(supra).
(9) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3882 of 2014;
Anuradha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another v.
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set
aside. In view of the findings rendered above in this
judgment, the order of the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set aside
with a direction to the said Authority to conduct fresh
enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the
above quoted parameters laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 51/56
(10) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.4926 of 2003;
The AnjangaonSurji Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited v.
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and
another, is partly allowed. The impugned order passed
by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to
the said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7A of
the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
(11) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5032 of 2003;
The Amravati Merchants' Cooperative Bank Limited v.
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and
another, is partly allowed. The impugned order passed
by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to
the said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7A of
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 52/56
the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
(12) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5226 of 2009;
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. Jagruti
Bigar Shetaki Pat Purwatha Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., is
partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is
quashed and set aside. In the light of the findings
rendered above, the order of the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded to the said Authority
for fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as
per the above quoted parameters laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident
Fund Organization (supra).
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 53/56
(13) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5566 of 2010;
The Central Board of Trustees through The Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner v. The Vasant Nagri
Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, is partly allowed. The
impugned order passed by the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside. In the
light of the findings rendered above, the order of the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is also
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the
said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7A of the
Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
(14) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5576 of 2015;
Bharti Maind Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha and another v.
Central Board of Trustees and another, is partly allowed.
The impugned order passed by the Assistant Provident
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 54/56
Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is quashed and set aside
and the matter is remanded to the said Authority for
fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per
the above quoted parameters laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
(15) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5667 of 2009;
Shattarka Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha v. Assistant
Provident Funds Commissioner, is partly allowed and a
direction is given to the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Nagpur to hold proper enquiry in terms
of the notices issued under section 7A of the Act of
1952 to the petitionerSanstha and to conduct such
enquiry as per the above quoted parameters laid down
by the Division Bench of this Court in review in the case
of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees
Provident Fund Organization (supra).
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 55/56
(16) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.6149 of 2011;
The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited v. The
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola is quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded to the said Authority
for fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as
per the above quoted parameters laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident
Fund Organization (supra).
(17) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.6191 of 2005;
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhartiya
Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set
aside. In view of the findings rendered above, the order
of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 56/56
is also quashed and set aside and the matter is
remanded to the said Authority for fresh enquiry under
section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted
parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization
(supra).
29. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5154 OF 2016
PETITIONER : Sanmitra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Akola, a registered Coop. Society,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.
Rammanohar Jamanlal Lohiya, Age 60
yrs., Ramdespeth, Akola, Tq. and Distt.
Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
SubRegional Office, 15B Raghuraj
Arced, Civil Lines, Akola, Tq. and Dist.
Akola.
2. Employees Provident Fund Appellate
th
Tribunal, 4 floor, Core 2, SCOPE Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 142 OF 2014
PETITIONER : Shri Keshav Urban Credit CoOp. Society
Ltd, Shegaon, Regd. No. 955/94, Office
Near Bus Stand, Shegaon, Distt–
Buldhana.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:07 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 2/56
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Assist. Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office Of Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, SubRegional Office,
Akola.
Shri N.R.Saboo, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2011
PETITIONER : M/s Baheti Automobiles, Near Shivaji
Park, Akola Through its Partner Shri
Kamalkishore Fulchand Baheti.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Employees” Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. Assistant Provident Fund Committee,
S.R.O., Nagpur, 132A, Ridge Road,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur – 440 009.
Shri N.R.Saboo, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2011
PETITIONER : The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari
Bank Limited, The Cooperative Bank,
registered under the Maharashtra Co
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:07 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 3/56
operative Societies Act, 1960, having its
registered office at Jawahar Road,
Amravati, through its Chief Executive
Officer, Shri Subhash S/o Shamrao
Mahure.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate
th
Tribunal, Scope Minar CoreII, 4 Floor,
Laxmi Nagar District Center, Laxmi
Nagar, New Delhi – 110092.
2. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub Region Office, Sant
Tukadoji Square, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1106 OF 2009
PETITIONER : Wardha Nagri Sahakari Adhikosh (Bank)
Ltd., Office at Madhav Bhavan, Dr. J.C.
Kumarappa Marg, Wardha, Through its
Chief Executive Officer.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : The Regional Provident Funds
Commissioner Office of Employees
Provident Funds Organization, SRO 132
A Ringe Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Square,
Nagpur.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 4/56
Shri S.S.Ghate, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1125 OF 2014
PETITIONER : The Akola Merchant Cooperative Bank
Ltd., Akola, through its Manager Mr.Dilip
Babarao, Gohad, Aged about 37 years,
occ. Service, Nisarg Plaza, Damle
Chowk, Hanuman Basti, Akola, Tq. and
Distt. Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
SubRegional Office, 15B Raghuraj
Arced, Civil Lines, Akola, Tq. and Dist.
Akola.
2. Employees Provident Fund Appellate
th
Tribunal, 4 Floor, Core 2, SCOPE Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3507 OF 2013
PETITIONER : 1. The Central Board of Trustees, Employees
Provident Fund , Having Office at
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 5/56
place, New Delhi110066, Through the
Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization.
2. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Chowk, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : The Agrasen Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Akola, A Registered Coop. Society duly
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Coop. Societies Act,
through its Manager, Gandhi Road,
Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola (M.S.).
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3654 OF 2010
PETITIONERS : 1. The Central Board of Trustee through
The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub Regional Office,
Raghuraj Arcade, Civil Lines, Akola.
Deleted as per order 2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
dtd.20.11.2014 Provident Fund, Mal Tekdi Road,
Amravati (M.S.).
...VERSUS...
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 6/56
RESPONDENT : M/s Abhinandan Urban Cooperative
Bank Ltd., Prabhat Chowk, Amravati,
Taluka & Dist. Amravati.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri A.P.Wachasunder, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3882 OF 2014
PETITIONERS : 1. Anuradha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
having its head office at Shivaji Chowk,
Chikhli, District Buldhana – 443 201.
Registration No. BLD/BNK/01/03/9899,
through the Chief Executive Officer.
2. Pandnarinath Anandrao Tekade, Chief
Executive Officer, Anuradha Urban
Cooperative Bank Ltd., Shivaji Chowk,
Chikhli, District Buldhana – 443 201.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
SubRegional Office, Akola, Taluka and
District Akola.
Shri M.V.Samarth, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 7/56
WRIT PETITION NO. 4926 OF 2003
PETITIONER : The Anjangaon – Surji Nagari Sahakari
Bank Limited, A Cooperative Bank
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
1960, having its Registered Office at
Shaniwarpeth Anjangaon – Surji, District
Amravati, through its Chief Executive
Officer Shri Narendra Tiwari.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, SubRegional Office, 132
A Ridge Road, Sant Tukdoji Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.
2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
Provident Fund, Maltekdi Road, Krushi
Lodge, District Amravati.
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5032 OF 2003
PETITIONER : The Amravati Merchants' Cooperative
Bank Limited, A Cooperative Bank
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
1960, having its Registered Office at
Merchants' Chamber, Ambapeth, Badnera
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 8/56
Road, District Amravati444 601, through
its Chief Executive Officer Shri
Narayanrao S/o Shankarrao Vidhale.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, SubRegional Office, 132
A Ridge Road, Sant Tukdoji Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.
2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
Provident Fund, Maltekdi Road, Krushi
Lodge, District Amravati.
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, counsel for Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5226 OF 2009
PETITIONER : The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Office of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, 132A,
Ridge Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Jagruti Bigar Shetaki Pat Purwatha
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Mandikota, Tahsil
Tiroda, District Gondia.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 9/56
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri S.R.Bhongade, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5566 OF 2010
PETITIONERS : 1. The Central Board of Trustee through
The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Chowk, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
Deleted as per order 2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
dtd.20.11.2014 Provident Fund, Mal Tekdi Road,
Amravati (M.S.).
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : The Vasant Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha
Maryadit, Cotton Market Yard, Akot,
through its Manager Dinesh Purushottam
Rathi, R/o Akot, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri A.J.Thakkar, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5576 OF 2015
PETITIONERS : 1. Bharti Maind Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha,
Jagdamba Apartment, Moti Nagar, Pusad,
District Yavatmal, through its President
Shri Apparao Maind, aged 64 years, r/o
Tilak Ward, Pusad, District Yavatmal.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 10/56
2. Gajanan Ramkrishna Nakade, aged 39
yrs, occ. Branch Manager, r/o Govind
Nagar, Pusad, District Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Central Board of Trustees, a Board
Corporate constituted under Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, having its
registered office at Bhavishya Nidhi
Bhavan, Bikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi
110 066, through Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional
Office, 15B, Raghuraj Aircad, Civil
Lines, Akola.
2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
O/o Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, subregional office, 15B,
Raghuraj Aircad, Civil Lines, Akola.
Shri R.G.Kavimandam, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5667 OF 2009
PETITIONER : Shattarka Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha,
Maryadit Nagpur 15 Through its Chief
Manager.
...VERSUS...
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 11/56
RESPONDENT : Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner,
Office of Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, SRO 132A, Ridge Road
Tukdoji Maharaj Chowk, Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur.
Shri S.S.Ghate, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6149 OF 2011
PETITIONER : The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank
Limited, The cooperative Bank, registered
under the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960, having its registered
office at Jawahar Road, Amravati,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Shri
Subhash S/o Shamrao Mahure.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub Region Office, 15B, Raghuraj
Arkade, Civil Lines, Akola 444 001.
Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2005
PETITIONER : Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office of the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Square, Raghujinagar, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 12/56
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha
Maryadit, Akola, through its Chief
Manager, Mr Vimlesh Syamsunder
Pande, aged about 35 years, Occupation
Service, R/o Alankar Market, Tilak Road,
Akola.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Respondent.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 28.02.2019.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 25.04.2019.
J U D G M E N T
Heard.
2. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. These writ
petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 13/56
3. This group of writ petitions, filed by the banks
(employer) as also by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
challenge orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal as also the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, pertaining to the question as to whether pigmy
agents/collection agents appointed by the banks for collection of
small deposit amounts could be covered under the provisions of
the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1952”) and whether the
Provident Fund Commissioner could enquire into the applicability
of the Act of 1952 on such banks and if so, the liability of the
banks under the provisions of the Act of 1952.
4. Since common questions arise in the present petitions,
the said questions are being decided first and then individual writ
petitions will be dealt with.
5. On behalf of the banks, learned counsel led by Mr.R.L.
Khapre contended that in view of the award of the Industrial
Tribunal at Hyderabad concerning specific question referred to the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 14/56
said Tribunal by the Central Government, which stood modified by
the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indian
Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others ,
reported in 1988 (1) LLJ 233 and such modified award stood
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the
case of Indian Bank Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank ,
reported in (2001) 3 SCC 36 , there was no scope for the
Provident Fund Commissioner to argue that the pigmy agents/
collection agents of the banks were covered under the provisions
of the Act of 1952. It was contended that the said service condition
of entitlement towards provident fund upon being covered under
the provisions of the Act of 1952 stood rejected by the aforesaid
modified award, confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
that such an award had binding force under section 18(3)(d) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of
1947”), thereby showing that the Act of 1952 was not applicable
and the contentions raised on behalf of the banks deserved to be
allowed. It was specifically contended that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court categorically held in the case of Punjab National Bank and
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 15/56
Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. , reported in (2006) 8 SCC 647 that
once such an award on a reference made by the Central
Government pertaining to an establishment had attained finality,
it was binding on all parties and the same could not be reopened.
6. On this basis, it was contended that the reliance
placed on the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident
Fund Organization , reported in 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 436 and 2017
(2) Mh.L.J. 946 in writ petition and review petition as also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik
Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner II , (Civil Appeal No.15680 of 2017, decided on
05/10/2017) was misplaced because the said contention
pertaining to binding nature of the award confirmed up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, was not brought to the notice of the
Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
On this basis, it was contended that the judgments and orders
passed in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 16/56
Employees Provident Fund Organization and Nashik Merchant
Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
II (supra) were per incuriam and not binding on this Court.
Alternatively, it was submitted that this Court ought to refer the
said question to Full Bench of this Court for resolution.
7. In this regard, reliance was placed by the learned
counsel appearing for the banks on various judgments pertaining
to the concept of ratio decidendi of a judgment, per incuriam
judgments and the fact that even a learned Single Judge of this
Court could directly refer a matter to the Full Bench of this Court
for consideration on certain issues.
8. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the
Provident Fund Commissioner led by Mr. R.S.Sundaram and Mr.
H.N.Verma, submitted that there was no substance in the
contention raised on behalf of the banks. It was submitted that
the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 17/56
Organization (supra) had been specifically confirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative
Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra)
and that the said judgments of this Court had remanded similar
matters concerning identical questions to the Authorities under the
Act of 1952 for consideration and further that in the review
judgment of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.Bank
Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) specific
parameters for assessment of questions were laid down by this
Court for the guidance of the Authorities. It was submitted that in
such a situation, the banks as well as the authorities under the Act
of 1952 had ample opportunity to place on record material for the
Authorities to answer all questions, including the question of
applicability of the Act to the banks, upon remand of the cases. It
was submitted that the said judgments of the Division Bench of
this Court, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were
clearly applicable to the present cases and that the Provident Fund
Commissioner, who was the petitioner in some petitions and the
respondent in others before this Court, conceded to the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 18/56
requirement of all the matters being remanded to the Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh on the parameters
laid down in the review judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees
Provident Fund Organization (supra).
9. On the contention raised on behalf of the banks that
the pigmy agents/collections agents were not covered under the
provisions of the Act of 1952 on the basis of binding force of the
award under the provisions of the Act of 1947, confirmed up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the said
contention was of no avail, because upon remand, the question of
applicability of the Act of 1952 would certainly be gone into by the
Tribunal and the power and authority of the concerned
officers/authorities under the provisions of the Act of 1952 could
not be taken away by the said interpretation put forth on behalf of
the banks. On the question of per incuriam or the necessity to
refer the matters to Full Bench of this Court, it was submitted that
the same was not necessary, in view of the fact that similar cases
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 19/56
had been already remanded to the Authorities by a Division Bench
of this Court, as confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
there was no conflict or dispute regarding any question of law that
arose in the present matter, warranting reference of the present
cases to a Full Bench for consideration and resolution. The
learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P.and
others v. M. R. Apparao and another , reported in (2002) 4 SCC
638 to contend that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) specifically used the words
“We are of the view that the entitlement of the employees to be
covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs to be decided in
the light of the aforesaid laid down parameters.” , it became clear
that the order of remand passed in the judgments in the writ
petition and review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.
v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) had received the
stamp of approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that in the
present cases also an order of remand was required to be passed,
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 20/56
so that the contentions of the rival parties could be decided on the
basis of the specific parameters laid down in the review judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples'
Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed on record. The question as to whether pigmy
agents/collection agents of banks were entitled for reliefs as
workmen, was subject matter of the aforesaid reference made by
the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad.
The question referred to the Tribunal by the Central Government
for adjudication under the provisions of the Act of 1947, was as
follows :
“Whether the demands of the Commission Agents or
as the case may be Deposit Collectors Employed in
the Banks listed in the Annexure that they are
entitled to pay scales, allowances and other service
conditions available to regular clerical employees of
those banks is justified? If not, to what relief are the
workmen concerned entitled and from which date?”
11. The Tribunal, answered the reference by holding that
such collection agents below the age of 45 years as on
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 21/56
03/10/1980 shall be considered for regular absorption for the post
of clerks and cashier in the banks and they could be taken as legal
employees if they passed qualifying examination to be conducted
by the banks and it was further held that those collection agents,
who were above the age of 45 years on the said date and were
unwilling to be absorbed in the service of the banks, they shall be
paid fall back wages of Rs.750/ per month and further that they
would be entitled to certain incentive remuneration, in addition to
payment of gratuity of 15 days commission for each year of service
rendered. In the process of reaching to the said conclusions, the
Tribunal categorically found that the collection agents were
employees of the bank and there was a relationship of master and
servant or employer and employee. It was also stated by the
Tribunal that the collection agents cannot claim any provident
fund or pension but they could pray for gratuity as mentioned
above.
12. The said award of the Tribunal was challenged before
the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by the judgment and order
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 22/56
dated 28/03/1997 passed by the High Court in the case of Indian
Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others
(supra), the High Court held that the finding of the Tribunal
regarding collection agents being workmen of the respective banks
was correct, but the direction for absorption of the collection
agents in the service of the banks, who were below the age of 45
years was not sustainable. The High Court did uphold the other
direction of the Tribunal pertaining to fall back wages, conveyance
allowance, incentive remuneration and gratuity.
13. The said award was in turn challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was decided in the said judgment in
the case of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate
Bank and others (supra), wherein the award as modified by the
High Court was upheld and hence, the finding that the collection
agents were indeed workmen, attained finality.
14. It is the case of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the banks before this Court that the facts regarding the
details of the award passed by the Tribunal as modified and
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 23/56
confirmed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court were
not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court when
the judgments were rendered in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) in the
writ petition and review petition. On this basis, it was contended
that even if the judgments in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) were
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik
Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner II (supra), such judgments were on a concession
given by the counsel agreeing to remand of the matters before the
Authorities under the Act of 1952 and that being in ignorance of
the said position of law regarding binding effect of award under
section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, the judgments in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra) were per incuriam and not binding on this
Court. As noted above, alternatively, it was submitted that this
aspect was required to be referred to a Full Bench of this Court.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 24/56
15. In order to consider the said contentions raised on
behalf of the banks, it would be necessary to first refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab
National Bank and Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. (supra), on
which much reliance has been placed on behalf of the banks on
the aspect of binding force of the said award of the Tribunal on
reference made by the Central Government, as modified by the
High Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and
others (supra). A perusal of the said judgment, shows that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and
Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. (supra) in paragraph 17, has held
as follows :
“17. In an industrial dispute referred to by the
Central Government which has an all-India
implication, individual workmen cannot be made
party to a reference. All of them are not expected to
be heard. The unions representing them were
impleaded as parties. They were heard. Not only
were the said unions heard before the High Court, as
noticed hereinbefore from a part of the judgment of
the High Court, they had preferred appeals before
this Court, Their contentions had been noticed by
this Court. As the award was made in presence of
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 25/56
the unions, in our opinion, the contention of
respondents that the award was not binding on them
cannot be accepted. The principles of natural justice
were also not required to be complied with as the
same would have been an empty formality. The court
will not insist on compliance of the principles of
natural justice in view of the binding nature of the
award. Their application would be limited to a
situation where the factual position or legal
implication arising thereunder is disputed and not
where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If
only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not
issue only because there was a violation of the
principles of natural justice.”
16. The emphasis in the said judgment was on the fact
that there was no necessity to issue separate notice to employees
of banks and establishments, who stood covered under the
aforesaid reference made by the Central Government before the
Tribunal at Hyderabad. In the context of the argument raised on
behalf of the employees therein that they were entitled to issuance
of separate notice and adherence to principles of natural justice
when the bank intended to take steps as per the modified award, it
was held that under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, award
pronounced on a reference made by the Central Government was
binding on all parties, including workmen in such establishments
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 26/56
to whom the award pertained. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in earlier judgments in the case of National Engineering India Ltd.
v. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371 and Kapra
Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills
Ltd.and another, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777 had reiterated
the binding nature of the award under section 18(3)(d) of the Act
of 1947 on the basis that for maintenance of industrial peace, such
awards are required to be held as binding on all the employees
and establishments.
17. But, a perusal of para 17 of the judgment in the case
of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. (supra)
quoted above, shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
reiterating binding nature of the award under the aforesaid
provisions, has observed that the principles of natural justice
would still apply to a situation where the factual position or legal
implication arising is disputed and not where it is not in dispute or
cannot be disputed. It is further held that if only one conclusion
was possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 27/56
violation of principles of natural justice. These observations in the
very same judgment are relevant for the present case. This is
because the present case concerns notices issued by Authorities
under the provisions of the Act of 1952 regarding applicability of
the provisions of the said Act and hence, contributions liable to be
paid by the banks as well as the collection agents, in the respective
facts of the individual cases. This necessarily encompasses the
question of power of the Authorities under the provisions of the
Act of 1952 to take steps as are necessary to fulfill the object of the
Act of 1952.
18. In this context, the nature of observations made by
the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad shows that the main question
considered by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 1947
was, as to whether collection agents of banks were workmen as
defined under the Act of 1947 and whether there was relationship
of employer and employee between the banks and the collection
agents. This is evident from paragraph 43 of the award of the
Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad. The entire discussion in the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 28/56
award is centered around the aforesaid question specified in
paragraph 43 of the award and it is on the basis of conclusions
rendered on the said question that the final directions and findings
are given in paragraph 69 of the award, details of which have been
already noted above. There is an observation in paragraph 68 of
the award that according to the member of the Industrial Tribunal,
it was felt that the collection agents could not claim provident
fund or pension, but the positive findings rendered in paragraph
69 pertained only to the question as to whether the collection
agents could be said to be workmen and employees of the banks.
The question, therefore, is whether the observation made in
paragraph 68 of the award, in the absence of any analysis would
successfully and permanently restrain the Authorities under the
Act of 1952 to even enter into the question as to whether the said
Act was applicable to the collection agents, who were found to be
workmen and employees of the banks.
19. In this context, section 7A of the Act of 1952 becomes
significant, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 29/56
“[7-A. Determination of moneys due from
employers. – [(1) The Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident
Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund
Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner or any Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, may, by order, –
(a) in a case where a dispute arises
regarding the applicability of this Act to an
establishment, decide such dispute; and
(b) determine the amount due from any
employer under any provisions of this Act, the
Scheme or the [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance
Scheme, as the case may be,
and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct
such inquiry as he may deem necessary.]”
20. The above quoted portion shows that even in a case
where dispute arises regarding the applicability of the Act of 1952
to an establishment, such a dispute also has to be decided by the
Provident Fund Commissioner. This shows that power and
jurisdiction of the Provident Fund Commissioner under section 7A
(1)(a) of the Act of 1952 encompasses the fundamental question
as to whether the Act of 1952 can even be applied to a particular
establishment. This Court is of the opinion that the observation
made in paragraph 68 of the award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal at Hyderabad in a reference made by the Central
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 30/56
Government under the provisions of the Act of 1947, cannot take
away the aforesaid power of the Provident Fund Commissioner
under section 7A(1)(a) of the Act of 1952 to decide as to whether
the provisions of the Act of 1952 would apply to the banks/
establishments in the present cases. If such an interpretation was
permitted, the very object of the Act of 1952 would be frustrated.
It is important that the banks in the present case are seeking to
stall an enquiry under the provisions of the Act of 1952 at the
threshold by relying upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding binding nature of the award under
section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, but the same cannot be
permitted.
21. In this context, the judgments of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) assume
significance, because a perusal of the specific parameters laid
down by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
review shows that the Authorities under the Act of 1952 have been
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 31/56
directed to make enquiry based on material including appointment
orders/contract letters/agreement between the banks and the
collection agents, as also to enquire as to whether the banks have
been paying wages disguised as commission to the collection
agents. Thus, the orders of remand passed by the Division Bench
of this Court do not lead to the conclusion that the banks have
been held to be liable or covered under the provisions of the Act of
1952, but detailed enquiry has been directed to be conducted by
the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of 1952 to ascertain
whether the banks could be covered under the provisions of the
Act of 1952. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce the
parameters specified by the Division Bench of this Court in the
review judgment in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
“32 We are, therefore, of the view that the
following factors must be considered by the EPF
Authorities in such cases :-
(a) The EPF Authorities should collect necessary
documents by inspection of records of the
Establishment/ Industry.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 32/56
(b) A direction to the Management to produce the
documents as may be found necessary, should
be issued whenever the EPF Authorities realize
that the Management is holding back certain
documents.
(c) The appointment orders/ contract letters or
agreements in between the Banks and the pigmy
agents/ deposit collectors should be made
available for scrutiny and should be taken into
consideration.
(d) Based on the above documents, the EPF
Authorities must adjudicate on the following
aspects:-
(i) Whether, the contracts/ appointment
orders have a semblance of employer-employee
relationship?
(ii) Whether, there is supervision, control and
direction of the Bank over such agents?
(iii) Whether, these agents are under an
obligation to work only for a particular Bank or
it's Branches?
(iv) Whether, these agents are permitted to
work elsewhere or undertake any other business,
job, profession or calling?
(v) Whether, such agents are primarily
dependent upon the work of collecting deposits
for a particular Establishment?
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 33/56
(e) Interrogate the pigmy depositors to elucidate
information about their exact nature of duties.
(f) Based on the documents and an analysis upon
considering the above mentioned factors, the
APFC will have to arrive at a conclusion
supported by reasons that such pigmy agents can
be termed as "workmen" and share employer-
employee relationship with the Bank and are
being paid wages disguised as commission. The
said commission amount would then be termed
as basic wages under Section 2(b) of the EPF
Act.”
22. In this backdrop, it becomes clear that there is no
substance in the contention raised on behalf of the banks that due
to binding nature of award of the Industrial Tribunal at
Hyderabad, as modified by the High Court and confirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of
1947, even the initiation of enquiry based on the said parameters
laid down by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be
undertaken.
23. It is also relevant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 34/56
Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) upheld the said parameters
laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the said review
orders by holding as follows:
“3. The order of the High Court taking the
aforesaid view seems to be primarily based on an
th
earlier decision of the High Court dated 7
February, 2014 in the case of The Pachora Peoples'
Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. The Employees Provident
Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Govt. of
India) [rendered in Writ Petition No.5086 of 2011
(Aurangabad Bench)]. It has been brought to the
notice of the Court by the learned counsels for the
appellants that the decision in The Pachora
Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra) was subjected to
a review before the High Court. Though the review
petition was dismissed, a view was taken by the
High Court that as hundreds of such disputes/cases
are pending before the EPF Authorities and the
High Court, certain parameters should be laid
down by the High Court to govern the exercise of
power in this regard by the EPF authorities under
the Act of 1952. The High Court on a
consideration of the matter deemed it proper to lay
down the following parameters:
“(a) The EPF authorities should collect necessary
documents by inspection of records of the
Establishment/Industry.
(b) A direction to the Management to produce the
documents as may be found necessary should be
issued whenever the EPF authorities realize that
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 35/56
the Management is holding back certain
documents.
(c) The appointment orders/contract letters or
agreements in between the Banks and the pigmy
agents/deposit collectors should be made available
for scrutiny and should be taken into
consideration.
(d) Based on the above documents, the EPF
authorities must adjudicate on the following
aspects:
(i) Whether, the contracts/appointment orders
have a semblance of employer-employee
relationship?
(ii) Whether,there is supervision, control and
direction of the Bank over such agents?
(iii) Whether, these agents are under an
obligation to work only for a particular Bank
or it's Branches?
(iv) Whether, these agents are permitted to work
elsewhere or undertake any other business,
job, profession or calling?
(v) Whether, such agents are primarily
dependent upon the work of collecting
deposits for a particular Establishment?
(e) Interrogate the Pigmy depositors to
elucidate information about their exact nature of
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 36/56
duties.
(f) Based on the documents and an analysis upon
considering the above mentioned factors, the APFC
will have to arrive at a conclusion supported by
reasons that such pigmy agents can be termed as
“workmen” and share employer-employee
relationship with the Bank and are being paid
wages disguised as commission. The said
commission amount would then be termed as basic
wages under section 2(b) of the EPF Act.”
4. As in the present case, the judgment of the
High Court impugned in these appeals does not
indicate consideration of any of the aforesaid
parameters and the High Court itself felt that the
matter needs to be dealt with by reference to
specific parameters noticed above, we are of the
view that the entitlement of the employees to be
covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs
to be tested in the light of the aforesaid laid down
parameters. We, therefore, are of the view that in
the facts of the present case it would be proper to
set aside the order of the High Court and remand
the matters for a de novo consideration by the EPF
Authorities in the light of the parameters laid
down by the High Court in its order of review
th
dated 11 January, 2017 in The Pachora Peoples'
Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra), as extracted herein
above.”
24. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the
Provident Fund Commissioner are justified in relying upon the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 37/56
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of
Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao (supra), wherein it has been held
that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court uses words to the effect
“ We are also of the view ” , it amounts to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court approving the view taken by the High Court in a particular
case. The above quoted portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank
Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) shows
that it has been categorically stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that “ We are of the view that the entitlement of the employees
to be covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs to be
decided in the light of the aforesaid laid down parameters. ”
Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao (supra) applies
squarely to the present case and the learned counsel appearing for
the banks were not justified in contending that the said directions
and observations given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner II (supra) were given on a concession of the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 38/56
counsel appearing for the banks in those cases. This Court is of
the opinion that the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court
in Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra) in writ petition and review read with
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik
Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner II (supra), approving the remand order and the
parameters specified by the Division Bench of this Court in the
review judgment, are binding on this Court and, therefore, the
present group of writ petitions needs to be disposed of in that
light. The contentions raised on behalf of the banks that the
judgments in the writ petition and review application in the case
of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra) are per incuriam due to ignorance of the
binding nature of settlement under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of
1947, is found by this Court to be unsustainable. A perusal of the
judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition
and review application in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank
Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) shows that
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 39/56
copious reference and quotations have been made by the Division
Bench of this Court from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of
Syndicate Bank and others (supra), whereby the modified award of
the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad was confirmed. In this
context, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing for the banks in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
State of M.P. , AIR 2011 SC 1989 and other judgments can be no
avail because this Court is of the opinion that the said contention,
which was not raised before the Division Bench of this Court
regarding binding nature of award of the Industrial Tribunal
would have no effect on the findings rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court, as the parameters laid down in the review
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court clearly point to the
fact that no final conclusion has been given regarding the
applicability of the Act of 1952 and only the power of the
Authorities under the Act of 1952 to make enquiry, including
enquiry contemplated under section 7A (1)(a) of the Act of 1952
pertaining to the very applicability of the said Act, has been
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 40/56
recognized. Hence, the said contention regarding the
judgments of the Division Bench of this Court being per incuriam is
rejected.
25. The alternative contention raised on behalf of the
banks, regarding necessity to refer the issues raised on behalf of
the banks for consideration to a Full Bench of this Court, is also
without any substance. This Court has considered the specific
issues raised on behalf of the banks and it is found that the
aforementioned judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees
Provident Fund Organization (supra) and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative
Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra)
cannot be said to be per incuriam and, therefore, there is no
question of any necessity to refer such issues to Full Bench of this
Court. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that even
a learned Single Judge can refer issues for consideration and
decision to a Full Bench of this Court directly, but once this Court
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 41/56
has come to the conclusion that in the present cases there is no
necessity to make such a reference, the said proposition can be of
no assistance to the banks. Therefore, the judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the banks in this context do not need to
be discussed.
26. There is also reference made to judgments of this
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the question as to
what can be said to be ratio decidendi of a judgment, but the said
judgments do not need any discussion or consideration because
this Court has found that the judgments of the Division Bench of
this Court in writ petition and review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization
(supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) lay down a ratio that is
binding on this Court and that there is no question of the said
judgments not being binding, because they were allegedly
rendered on concessions made on behalf of the banks therein.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 42/56
Accordingly, the said contention raised on behalf of the banks is
rejected.
27. It is important to refer to the fact that even while
approving the parameters laid down by the review judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
judgment in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) specifically
directed that the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of 1952
would be at liberty to take decision afresh in the matters after
hearing the contesting parties, who also would be at liberty to
raise all contentions as may be available in law. Therefore, it
becomes clear that if the dispute in the present cases is also
remanded to the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of
1952, to be taken up for consideration on the parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in review
in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees
Provident Fund Organization (supra), all questions would be open
and they would be decided on material that would be placed on
record by rival parties, which could be enquired into by the
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 43/56
Authorities as per the mandate of the Act of 1952. Such an enquiry
can certainly not be permitted to be thwarted at the threshold on
the basis of the said argument regarding binding nature of the
award of the Industrial Tribunal under section 18(3)(d) of the Act
of 1947.
28. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion
that the writ petitions in the present case deserve to be partly
allowed and all the cases deserve to be remanded to the Provident
Fund Commissioner for undertaking enquiry under section 7A of
the Act of 1952, on the parameters laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.
v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) quoted above,
including on the question of the applicability of the Act of 1952 to
the banks/employers in the present case as mandated under
section 7A(1)(a) of the Act of 1952. On this basis, the writ
petitions are being disposed of individually herein below:
(1) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5154 of 2016;
Sanmitra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Akola v.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 44/56
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another, is
partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New
Delhi and order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Akola are quashed and set aside. The
dispute is remanded back to the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, Akola to undertake enquiry under
section 7A of the Act of 1952 in the light of the above
quoted parameters specifically laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
(2) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.142 of 2014;
Shri Keshav Urban Credit Coop. Society Ltd., Shegaon
v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola is quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 45/56
Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola for holding fresh
enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 on the
basis of the above quoted parameters laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident
Fund Organization (supra).
(3) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.333 of 2011;
M/s. Baheti Automobiles v. Employees' Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and another, is partly
allowed. The impugned orders dated 09/12/2004 and
31/03/2005 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Nagpur, as also the impugned order
dated 03/09/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal are quashed and set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, Nagpur for holding fresh enquiry
under section 7A of the Act of 1952 by applying the
above quoted parameters laid down by the Division
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 46/56
Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
(4) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1027 of 2011;
The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited v. The
Employees' Assistant Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
and another, is partly allowed. The impugned orders
dated 24/05/2004 and 30/07/2004 passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur as also
the impugned order dated 07/01/2011 passed by the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal are
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
for holding fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of
1952 on the basis of the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 47/56
(5) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1106 of 2009;
Wardha Nagri Sahakari Adhikosh (Bank) Limited v. The
Regional/Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, is
partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
for holding fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of
1952 on the basis of the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra), quoted
above. The prayer made on behalf of the intervener i.e.
the Union of Employees to detag the present writ
petition from the bunch of present writ petitions is
rejected.
(6) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1125 of 2014;
The Akola Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd., Akola v.
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 48/56
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another, is
partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola as also
the impugned order passed by the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal are quashed and set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, Akola for holding fresh enquiry
under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the above
quoted parameters laid down by the Division Bench of
this Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co
op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization
(supra), quoted above.
(7) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3507 of 2013;
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. The
Agrasen Nagari Sahakari Bank ltd., Akola, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set
aside. In view of the findings rendered above in this
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 49/56
judgment, the order of the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set aside
with a direction to the said Authority to conduct fresh
enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the
above quoted parameters laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
(8) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3654 of 2010;
The Central Board of Trustees, through The Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Abhinandan
Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., is partly allowed. The
impugned order passed by the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside. In
view of the findings rendered above in this judgment,
the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Nagpur is also quashed and set aside with a direction to
the said Authority to conduct fresh enquiry under
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 50/56
section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted
parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization
(supra).
(9) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3882 of 2014;
Anuradha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another v.
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set
aside. In view of the findings rendered above in this
judgment, the order of the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set aside
with a direction to the said Authority to conduct fresh
enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the
above quoted parameters laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 51/56
(10) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.4926 of 2003;
The AnjangaonSurji Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited v.
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and
another, is partly allowed. The impugned order passed
by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to
the said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7A of
the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
(11) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5032 of 2003;
The Amravati Merchants' Cooperative Bank Limited v.
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and
another, is partly allowed. The impugned order passed
by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to
the said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7A of
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 52/56
the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
(12) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5226 of 2009;
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. Jagruti
Bigar Shetaki Pat Purwatha Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., is
partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is
quashed and set aside. In the light of the findings
rendered above, the order of the Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded to the said Authority
for fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as
per the above quoted parameters laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident
Fund Organization (supra).
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 53/56
(13) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5566 of 2010;
The Central Board of Trustees through The Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner v. The Vasant Nagri
Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, is partly allowed. The
impugned order passed by the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside. In the
light of the findings rendered above, the order of the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is also
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the
said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7A of the
Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in
the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).
(14) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5576 of 2015;
Bharti Maind Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha and another v.
Central Board of Trustees and another, is partly allowed.
The impugned order passed by the Assistant Provident
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 54/56
Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is quashed and set aside
and the matter is remanded to the said Authority for
fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per
the above quoted parameters laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the review in the case of Pachora
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund
Organization (supra).
(15) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5667 of 2009;
Shattarka Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha v. Assistant
Provident Funds Commissioner, is partly allowed and a
direction is given to the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Nagpur to hold proper enquiry in terms
of the notices issued under section 7A of the Act of
1952 to the petitionerSanstha and to conduct such
enquiry as per the above quoted parameters laid down
by the Division Bench of this Court in review in the case
of Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees
Provident Fund Organization (supra).
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 55/56
(16) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.6149 of 2011;
The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited v. The
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola is quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded to the said Authority
for fresh enquiry under section 7A of the Act of 1952 as
per the above quoted parameters laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of
Pachora Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident
Fund Organization (supra).
(17) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.6191 of 2005;
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhartiya
Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola, is partly
allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set
aside. In view of the findings rendered above, the order
of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::
WPs5154.16+16Judgment 56/56
is also quashed and set aside and the matter is
remanded to the said Authority for fresh enquiry under
section 7A of the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted
parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization
(supra).
29. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:01:08 :::