CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES versus M/S INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD. on 26 July 2018

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 7 S.C.R.

A

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES

v.

M/S INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD.

(Civil Appeal No. 7240 of 2018)

BJULY 26, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure – Dismissal of writ petition byunreasoned order – Propriety of – Appellant issued summons to therespondent for non-payment of the Provident Fund contribution inCthe year 2005-2006 and ordered the respondent to pay inter aliadamages for the delayed payments – Respondent filed appeal, whichwas allowed by Employees Provident Fund Tribunal – Appellantfiled writ petition, which was dismissed by Division Bench of theHigh Court – On appeal, held: Division Bench dismissed the writDpetition cursorily without dealing with any of the issues arising inthe case as also the arguments urged by the parties in support oftheir case – Only expression used by the Division Bench in disposingof the writ petition is “on due consideration” – It is not clear as towhat was that due consideration which persuaded the DivisionBench to dispose of the writ petition – Courts need to pass reasonedEorder in every case containing facts, issues arising in the case,submissions urged by the parties, legal principles applicable to theissues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all theissues arising in the case – Division Bench failed to keep theseprinciples in mind, causing prejudice to the parties – ImpugnedForder set aside – Matter remanded to the Division Bench for decidingthe writ petition on merits – Employees Provident Fund andMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – ss.7A, 7C, 7Q and 14B.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench dismissed the writ petitionGfiled by the appellant cursorily without dealing with any of theissues arising in the case as also the arguments urged by theparties in support of their case. [Para 13] [1133-E]

1.2 Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicialmind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appealand without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoningH

and categorical findings on the issues and why the findingsimpugned in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed,while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light oflegal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult to sustainsuch order of the Division Bench. The only expression used bythe Division Bench is “on due consideration”. It is not clear asto what was that due consideration which persuaded the DivisionBench to dispose of the writ petition because in the earlier parasonly facts are set out. Time and again, Supreme Court hasemphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order inevery case which must contain the narration of the bare facts ofthe case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case,the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principlesapplicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support ofthe findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by thecounsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. The DivisionBench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing ofthe writ petition. Such order has caused prejudice to the partiesbecause it deprived them to know the reasons as to why oneparty has won and other has lost. The case is remanded to theDivision Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petitionafresh on merits in accordance with law.[Paras 14-16][1133-F-H ; 1134-A-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7240of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W. P. No. 1046 of 2017.

Dushyant Parashar, Adv. for the Appellant.

Navin Prakash, Ms. Meetu Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated01.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench atIndore in Writ Petition No.1046 of 2017 whereby the Division Bench ofthe High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant hereinand affirmed the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the EmployeesProvident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No.214(8) of 2015.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would beclear from the facts stated hereinbelow.

4. On 19.05.2008, the appellant-Central Board of Trustees issuedsummons under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund andMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)Bto the respondent-M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. for non-payment ofthe Provident Fund contribution in the year 2005-2006 on the wageslesser than the minimum wages prescribed for the employees under thecategory of semi-skilled. The representative of the respondent attendedthe enquiry and submitted that the Department has not considered non-working days of the employees already furnished in Form 3A for theCyear 2005-2006 and there are some employees under the category ofunskilled whereas the Department has treated all of them as semi-skilled.The appellant, after considering the aforesaid, by order dated 15.04.2010,directed the respondent to deposit Rs.87,204/- within 15 days from thereceipt of that order. It was also stated that the above order underDSection 7A is without prejudice to any action under Sections 7C, 7Q and14B of the Act.

5. On 21.01.2015, the appellant, in exercise of the power underSection 14B of the Act, ordered the respondent to pay damages andallied dues of Rs.91,585/- for the delayed payments from 01/2007 to 02/E2006 to 05/2013.

6. Challenging the said order, the respondent filed an appeal beingATA No.214 (8) of 2015 before the Employees Provident Fund AppellateTribunal, New Delhi. Vide order dated 06.09.2016, the Tribunal allowedthe appeal and set aside the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by theFappellant.

7. Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition being Writ PetitionNo.1046 of 2017 before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugnedorder, dismissed the petition.

8. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal byGway 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 dismissingthe appellant’s writ petition.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

H

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, setaside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench ofthe High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits inaccordance with law.

12. After setting out the facts, the Division Bench proceeded todisposed of the writ petition with the following observations in itsconcluding paras which read as under:

“On due consideration of the aforesaid on the basis of the fresh documents and affidavit for taking additionaldocuments on record,we cannot direct the establishmentto pay damages for the period from March 2006-April 2010when all these objections were not taken before the learnedTribunal.

Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the orderpassed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and nocase for interference with the impugned order is warranted.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and isaccordingly dismissed.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. In our opinion, the need to remand the case to the High Courthas occasioned for the reason that the Division Bench dismissed thewrit petition filed by the appellant (petitioner) cursorily without dealingwith any of the issues arising in the case as also the arguments urged bythe parties in support of their case.

14. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind tothe factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and withoutthere being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categoricalfindings on the issues and why the findings impugned in the writ petitiondeserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments ofthe parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it isdifficult for this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. Theonly expression used by the Division Bench in disposing of the appeal is“on due consideration”. It is not clear to us as to what was that dueconsideration which persuaded the Division Bench to dispose of the writpetition because we find that in the earlier paras only facts are set out.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A15. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts theneed to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain thenarration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issuesarising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principlesapplicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findingson all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel forBthe parties in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that theDivision Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing ofthe writ petition. Such order, in our view, has undoubtedly caused prejudiceto the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to whyone party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance theCmanner in which such order was passed by the High Court which hascompelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding thewrit 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 BenchDof the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits inaccordance with law keeping in view our observations made supra.

17. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from makingany observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinionto remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above.EThe High Court would, therefore, decide the writ petition, uninfluencedby any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law.

18. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is accordingly allowedand the impugned order is set aside.

FDivya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

G

H