State Programme Manager, State Health Society And ANR v. Central Provident Fund Commissioner And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/320/2024 State Programme Manager, State Health Society and another Vs Central Provident Fund Commissioner and others Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

... for the petitioners Mr.V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondents January 20, 2025 [SR] Item no.2 1.

This is a hearing of the writ petition on affidavits. 2.

Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply are on record.

3.

Referring to the order passed by the Provident Fund Authority under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( for short, the Provident Fund Act) dated August 31, 2023, Annexure P-1 at page 32 to the writ petition, Ms.Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate submits that being aggrieved therewith the petitioners, being the employer, had preferred a review application under section 7 B of the Provident Fund Act, at Page 115 to the writ petition. The review application was rejected by the impugned order dated June 07, 2024 by the respondent no.3, Annexure P-10 at page 187 to the writ petition.

4.

Learned senior counsel submits that the authority had never issued any prior notice of hearing of the review application neither the petitioners were granted any opportunity of hearing.

5.

Mr. Sivabalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the review application was duly considered and then upon perusal of available material, the same was rejected by the authorities. Therefore, no interference is called for.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this court that the learned counsel for the respondents failed to establish that the review application was rejected upon a prior notice of hearing being served on the petitioner and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7.

The law is well settled that in an adversarial proceeding, even before the statutory authority, opportunity of hearing is one of the essential elements as the basic requirement to comply with the principle of natural justice which has to be afforded to the parties to such adversarial proceeding. 8.

When opportunity of hearing is denied and the same is evident from record, the order passed or decision taken by the authority, is wholly without jurisdiction and void. 9.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated June 07, 2024 Annexure P-10 at page 187 to the writ petition stands set aside and quashed.

10.

The respondent no.3 is directed to revisit the issue and rehear the review applciation being Annexure P-10 at page 115 to the writ petition upon a prior hearing notice of at least seven days to the petitioners and after granting them an opportunity of hearing and then by passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law.

11.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. 12.

The parties shall be at liberty to urge whatever point they wish to urge by relying upon existing records in connection with the review application before the respondent no.3 but the same shall not travel beyond the scope of the pending review application.

13.

It is made clear that this order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the either parties, if they do not succeed to their respective contentions before the respondent no.3 strictly in accordance with law.

14.

The respondent no.3 shall conclude the review proceedings in accordance with law positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 15.

Till the review application is disposed of, there shall not be any coercive steps against the petitioners. 16.

However, after the review application is disposed of, depending upon its result, the parties shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.

17.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA/320/2024 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. )