# M/s P.G.T.C. P. Ltd. and ors v. Assitt. Provident Fund Commissioner & another

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 64
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-03
- **Bench:** S.P.Srivastava J. M.P. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-p-g-t-c-p-ltd-and-ors-v-assitt-provident-fund-commissioner-another-40060
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act
1952-
Whether
the
provident fund Commissioner at the time
of deciding the Controversy act as
Tribunal or a Court held - at the most it
can be treated as tribunal.

High Court Rules - chapter 8 R. 5
Special Appeal - order passed by learned
Single Judge entertaining writ Petition
against
the
order
Passed
by
the
Provident Fund Commissioner- Special
Appeal held not maintainable

Held Para 6

In the aforesaid view of the matter the
appeal is clearly not maintainable. The
preliminary objection is sustainable in
law.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
takes any other step in accordance with
law for enhancement of the compensation.

Sri Srivastava has referred to Gram
Seva Mandal Versus Collector, Wardha
and others, (AIR 1975 SC 73) in support
of his submission that writ petition at the
instance of the present petitioner Rehman
Siddiqui is maintainable. In our opinion,
the
authority
cited
is
clearly
distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel
has also referred to a judgment of this
court in Agra Development Authority
versus special land Acquisition Officer
(2000(2) AWC 1065 ). This decision can
be of no assistance to the petitioner, as on
the material placed before the Court, it
was held that the development authority
had full knowledge of the pendency of
proceedings
for
determination
of
compensation.

For reasons mentioned above, we
find no merit in the writ petition, which is
hereby dismissed with cost.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P.SRIVASTAVA J.
THE HON'BLE M.P. SINGH,J.

Special Appeal No. 1278 of 2002.

M/S P.G.T. Components Private Ltd. and
others

 ...Appellants
Versus
The
Assistant
Provident
Fund
Commissioner & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri K.S. Ojha
Sri Chandra Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.L. Tripathi

Employees Provident funds and Misc.
Provisions
Act
1952-
Whether
the
provident fund Commissioner at the time
of deciding the Controversy act as
Tribunal or a Court held - at the most it
can be treated as tribunal.

High Court Rules - chapter 8 R. 5
Special Appeal - order passed by learned
Single Judge entertaining writ Petition
against
the
order
Passed
by
the
Provident Fund Commissioner- Special
Appeal held not maintainable

Held Para 6

In the aforesaid view of the matter the
appeal is clearly not maintainable. The
preliminary objection is sustainable in
law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Srivastava. J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants as well as the learned counsel
representing the respondent authorities.

2. A preliminary objection has been
raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents
challenging
the
maintainability of this appeal asserting
that the order, which was the subject
matter of the writ petition disposed of by
the learned Single Judge vide the
impugned order dated 26.10.2002, was an
order passed by a Tribunal, therefore, as
provided in Chapter VIII Rule-5 of the
Rules of the Court, no special appeal
could lie against such an order.

3. A perusal of the various
provisions of the Employees Provident
Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952
indicates that under the Scheme of the Act
the Provident Fund Commissioner while
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] M/s P.G.T.C. P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assitt. Provident Fund Commissioner & another
65
discharging its duties under the Act has
not been vested with any trappings of the
court. At the most he can be taken to be a
Tribunal. The learned counsel for the
appellant has not been able to point out
any such feature which may lead to an
inference that while discharging the duties
under the Act the Provident Fund
Commissioner can be taken to be a Court.

4. It may further be noticed at this
stage that a Division Bench of this Court
in its decision in the case of The India
Thermit Corporation Ltd. Vs Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner and others,
Special Appeal No. 567 of 1994 decided
on
23.3.1994
following
the
earlier
decision of another Division Bench in
writ petition No. 3503 of 1981, in the case
of The India Thermit Corporation Ltd. Vs
Regional provident Fund Corporation,
U.P. decided on 5.11.1981 had observed
that
the
Regional
Provident
Fund
Commissioner functions as a Tribunal
while discharging the duties under the
provisions of the said Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants
has not been able to demonstrate that the
status of a Provident Fund Commissioner
while discharging the duties envisaged
under the Provident Fund Act is that of a
Tribunal and not of a Court..

6. In the aforesaid view of the matter
the appeal is clearly not maintainable. The
preliminary objection is sustainable in
law.

7. However, even on merits, a
perusal of the memo of appeal specially
ground no. 2 makes it apparent that the
appellants
are
not
disputing
the
applicability of the Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952. In fact, as noticed by the learned
Single Judge in the impugned order, the
petitioners did not challenge the
applicability
of
the
Act
to
their
establishment since they themselves have
been claiming that they were depositing
the Provident Fund earlier.

8. In the aforesaid view of the matter
the learned Single Judge did not find fault
with that part of the order passed by the
learned Provident Fund Commissioner so
far as it closed the proceedings regarding
applicability of the provisions of the
Employees'
Provident
Funds
and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to the
establishment of the present appellants.
So far as the other part of the order of the
Commissioner is concerned, the learned
Single Judge has left it open to the
petitioners - appellants to raise all
submissions including bringing on the
record the documentary evidence before
the concerned authority. Therefore, while
determining the extent of liability the
concerned authority will have to take into
consideration the evidence and the
materials brought on record by the present
appellants in support of its defence raised
in opposition to the notice in question.

9. Taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances as brought on
record including the fact that the interest
of the present appellants has been amply
protected, we are not inclined to interfere
in the discretion exercised by the learned
Single Judge.

This Special Appeal, consequently,
fails and is dismissed in limine.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.01.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 285 of 2003

R.R. Pandey

...Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. R.G. Padia
Sri Prakash Padia

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A. K. Misra
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226
-
Suspension Order - Validity Challenged
ground that no opportunity given before
passing the order - No Particular of
charges given in suspension Order - held
-
suspension
is
no
punishment
-
opportunity not required - Similarly the
Substance of Charges are already there -
if established the dismissal order can be
passed - held - writ petition liable to
dismissed - direction for conclusion of
enquiry within 3 months given.

Held - para 8

The charges mentioned in the impugned
order are serious enough in the event of
their being established to warrant major
penalty. It may be mentioned that
suspension itself is not a punishment.
There
are
situations
that
call
for
immediate action against a Government
servant or a servant of some other body.
In view of the seriousness of the misconduct
or
the
circumstances.
Immediate action may be required It is
not
therefore,
necessary
to
give
opportunity
of
hearing
or
detailed
reasons in the suspension order as a
suspension order is not a quasi judicial
order at all. A suspension order is an
administrative order and hence the rules
of natural justice need not be complied
with before passing a suspension order.
The rules of natural justice have to be
complied with only when a penalty is
being imposed e.g. dismissal of service
or reduction of salary, but as stated
above a suspension order is not a
penalty.
Case law discussed:
1995 ACJ- 604

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing counsel.

2. The petitioner is challenging the
impugned
suspension
order
dated
9.12.2002.

3. The petitioner was Executive
Engineer in the service of U.P. Jal Nigam
and he has been suspended by the
impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the suspension order is
illegal because it does not mention the
charges. In our opinion a suspension order
is not a charge sheet and hence it is not
necessary to mention the charges in detail
in the suspension order. The detailed
charges can be given subsequently by a
charge sheet.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on the Division Bench decision
of this Court in Mitthan Lal Sharma vs.
District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
society, U.P. and others 1995 A C J 604.
It was held in that decision that there
should
be
some
indication
in
the
suspension order of the nature of the mis-