Central Board Of Trustees v. Fci And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Decided on :25.03.2025 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES . .Petitioner
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR . . . Respondents 291.1 CWP-609-2024 (O&M) CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION . .Petitioner
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA . . . Respondents 291.2 CWP-1060-2024 (O&M) CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION . .Petitioner
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA . . . Respondents CWP-496-2024 (O&M) CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION . .Petitioner
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR . . . Respondents CWP-784-2024 (O&M) CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION . .Petitioner
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR . . . Respondents CWP-934-2024 (O&M) CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION . .Petitioner
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.
-2-
!"#
$ %&'( ) *
+ & &, ) )
#+ - )
" -) (
!
. /"#
$ %& ( #
0 .# 1 2 % -
3 % #
4"
4#( -) & ! ,
# 5 -)
$
-) & #+
!
"#
$ %&'( ' ,
!
. /"#
$ %& ( $ #
0 .#
4# -) 4 ,
-)
&
7.
The order which has been passed by the appellate Tribunal as
-3impugned in the present petition is a well reasoned order. Due reasons have been given for not accepting the claim of the petitioner department that the workman who are working for the Aartias, are to be treated the employees of the FCI so as to claim the deposit of the provident Fund on account of those employees from the FCI.
With regard to the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Aartias have not been examined, which fact has been taken as a ground to record a findings that in absence of the same no findings could have been recorded by the assessing authority that Aartias were not making payments to the employees and, the same was being done by the FCI, due chance should have been given to the petitioner department to reassess their claim qua FCI. In case fresh assessment is permissible, the petitioners can have their own first assessment on their own end first. In case, some tangible evidences comes out then the petitioners can pass-on that evidences to the FCI and thereafter authorities concerned can decide whether the employees of the Aartias can be treated as employees of the FCI so as to claim department of Provident Fund from FCI. As of now, no such material has been brought on record to show that the order passed by the appellate Tribunal is incorrect to the effect that the workers working with the Aartias were infact the employees of the FCI.
9.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the above, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to examine the issue after going through the actual facts and by recording the statement of the Aartias as to ascertain who was paying the employees who were working for the Aartias and in case any tangible evidence comes on record fresh assessment will be done by
-4affording due opportunity of hearing to the FCI in order to find out whether the FCI can be made liable for the deposit of the provident fund even for the workers who were working for the Aartias or not. It may be noticed that the petitioners will also examine as to whether even if, FCI was paying any such employee of the Aartias still, keeping in view the terms and conditions which are required to be fulfilled for the deposit of the provident fund were fulfilled or not in a manner required under the 1952 Act.
11.
Ordered accordingly.
12.
Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.
13.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 25.03.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No