Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7240 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.16841 of 2018)
Central Board of Trustees ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.05.15
15:38:05 IST
Reason:
Petition No.1046 of 2017 whereby the Division
1
Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the order
dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in
ATA No.214(8) of 2015.
3) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass
and it would be clear from the facts stated
hereinbelow.
4) On 19.05.2008, the appellantCentral Board of
Trustees issued summons under Section 7A of the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”) to the respondentM/s Indore Composite Pvt.
Ltd. for nonpayment of the Provident Fund
contribution in the year 20052006 on the wages
lesser than the minimum wages prescribed for the
employees under the category of semiskilled. The
representative of the respondent attended the
2
enquiry and submitted that the Department has not
considered nonworking days of the employees
already furnished in Form 3A for the year 2005
2006 and there are some employees under the
category of unskilled whereas the Department has
treated all of them as semiskilled. The appellant,
after considering the aforesaid, by order dated
15.04.2010, directed the respondent to deposit
Rs.87,204/ within 15 days from the receipt of that
order. It was also stated that the above order under
Section 7A is without prejudice to any action under
Sections 7C, 7Q and 14B of the Act.
5) On 21.01.2015, the appellant, in exercise of
the power under Section 14B of the Act, ordered the
respondent to pay damages and allied dues of
Rs.91,585/ for the delayed payments from
01/2007 to 02/2006 to 05/2013.
3
6) Challenging the said order, the respondent
filed an appeal being ATA No.214 (8) of 2015 before
the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi. Vide order dated 06.09.2016, the
Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order
dated 21.01.2015 passed by the appellant.
7) Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition
being Writ Petition No.1046 of 2017 before the High
Court. The High Court, by the impugned order,
dismissed the petition.
8) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed the
present appeal by way of special leave before this
Court.
9) The short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division
Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing
the appellant’s writ petition.
10) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the
impugned order and remand the case to the Division
Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petition
afresh on merits in accordance with law.
12) After setting out the facts, the Division Bench
proceeded to disposed of the writ petition with the
following observations in its concluding paras which
read as under:
“On due consideration of the aforesaid on the
basis of the fresh documents and affidavit for
taking additional documents on record, we
cannot direct the establishment to pay
damages for the period from March 2006
April 2010 when all these objections were not
taken before the learned Tribunal.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view
that the order passed by the learned Tribunal
is just and proper and no case for
interference with the impugned order is
warranted.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner has
no merit and is accordingly dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
5
13) In our opinion, the need to remand the case to
the High Court has occasioned for the reason that the
Division Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant (petitioner) cursorily without dealing with
any of the issues arising in the case as also the
arguments urged by the parties in support of their
case.
14) Indeed, in the absence of any application of
judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy
involved in the appeal and without there being any
discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical
findings on the issues and why the findings impugned
in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed,
while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the
light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is
difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the
Division Bench. The only expression used by the
Division Bench in disposing of the writ petition is “on
6
due consideration”. It is not clear to us as to what was
that due consideration which persuaded the Division
Bench to dispose of the writ petition because we find
that in the earlier paras only facts are set out.
15) Time and again, this Court has emphasized on
the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every
case which must contain the narration of the bare
facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues
arising in the case, the submissions urged by the
parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues
involved and the reasons in support of the findings on
all the issues arising in the case and urged by the
learned counsel for the parties in support of its
conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division
Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while
disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view,
has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties
because it deprived them to know the reasons as to
7
why one party has won and other has lost. We can
never countenance the manner in which such order
was passed by the High Court which has compelled us
to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding
the writ petition afresh on merits.
16) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow
the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand
the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for
deciding the writ petition afresh on merits in
accordance with law keeping in view our observations
made supra.
17) We, however, make it clear that we have
refrained from making any observation on merits of
the controversy having formed an opinion to remand
the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned
above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the
writ petition, uninfluenced by any of our observations,
strictly in accordance with law.
8
18) With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is
accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set
aside.
……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………...................................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
New Delhi;
July 26, 2018
9