M/S. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., V. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

SCA/18496/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. challenging notices and memos issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner argued that the inquiry was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent and violated principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the inquiry was necessary to determine dues and ensure compliance with the Act. The court examined the procedural aspects of the inquiry, the jurisdiction of the authorities, and the applicability of the Act to the employees in question.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 743524 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
• Laws Referred To: Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E SHAILAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: KAMAL TRIVEDI
• Keywords: Competency; Fundamental rights; Inquiry; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Provident fund
• Section: 14; 7A; 19(1)(g)

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18496 of 2016 ========================================================== M/S. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., & 1 other(s) Versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & 2 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MR.KAMAL TRIVEDI, SENIOR ADVOCATE for MR KUNAN B NAIK with MR. VIVAN SHAH, MR.UTSAV PARIKH(3210) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 20/12/2019 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the notice dated 14.08.2015, issued by the respondent No.1­ Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (to be referred as 'the Act' herein after), as well as the Spot Memo dated 01.05.2015, issued by respondent No.3, seeking following reliefs, “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding and declaring that the impugned memo dated 1.5.2015 and the impugned notice dated 14.8.2015 are in illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and in contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, Page 1 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER 1952 and in violation of principles of natural justice; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned memo dated 1.5.2015 and impugned notice dated 14.8.2015; (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or direction prohibiting the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from proceeding further with the inquiry initiated under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; (E) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further inquiry initiated by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; (F) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant an ex­ parte ad­interim relief in terms of Para 10(E) above; (G) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things.” 2. The facts in the present petition would deserve reproduction in a capsulized form for the purpose of adjudication. 3. The petitioner No.1 is a Company engaged in research and development as well as manufacturing, distributing and selling of bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals formulations and for that purpose, has its registered office in Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Page 2 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER The petitioner No.2 is the shareholder of the petitioner Company. 4. By way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has preferred to challenge both the impugned notice dated 14.08.2015 and the Spot Memo dated 01.05.2015. The respondent No.3 had demanded certain documents from the petitioner Company since the time it has been set up i.e. of the year,1972 and also sought records from all the units of the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company has factories at Dahej in Gujarat, Baddi in Himachal Pradesh and Gangtok in Sikkim. 4.1 According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 had no authority, competency and jurisdiction to initiate inquiry at all of the units of petitioner. The authorities in the respective jurisdictions where the units are located have not initiated any inquiry under Section 7A of the Act nor any complaints have been registered. The inquiry initiated by the respondent authorities is stated to be vague, indefinite, fishing and roving inquiry. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had produced the records which are available before the respondent authorities as also the details of the contractors in their communication at 07.05.2015 and 09.03.2016. The authorities have failed to implead those contractors as parties to the proceedings although they are alleged to have committed an illegality. The powers under Section 7A of the Act, according to the petitioner, is not to determine actual difference in payment of contribution by identifying the concerned workmen after due verification. Therefore, the inquiry initiated by the respondent authorities is in complete disregard to their own guidelines dated 04.08.2010 and 06.08.2014. It is nothing, but, a deliberate predetermined and prearranged attempt to harass the petitioner Company. Page 3 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER 5. The inquiry had been initiated in respect of the complaints received from 11 employees who are drivers in the Company. The 11 drivers have never been appointed by the petitioner Company at any point of time in its employment either by way of permanent appointment or through contract. There has never been an employer­ employee relationship between the petitioner Company and the 11 drivers. The officers of the petitioner Company had engaged the 11 drivers in their personal capacity for their personal services to drive the car allotted by the petitioner Company. Even otherwise, the adjudication with regard to those 11 persons had been referred to the Labour Court, which eventually had rejected their reference and the matter is now pending before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.14172 of 2017. 5.1 It is urged that the inquiry initiated is baseless, unjustified, illegal, unconstitutional and without application of mind. The petitioner had made request to the respondent No.3 to provide the details and information on the basis of which the inquiry had been initiated and that the inquiry is not maintainable as per their own guidelines dated 06.08.2014. 6. On issuance of notice, Affidavit­in­reply came to be filed on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Ankit Soni, working as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), in the office of the respondents, urging that all the respondents are the statutory authorities constituted under the Act. The petitioner is brought under the purview of the said Act and is alloted Provident Fund Code No.GJ/AHD/10359­A, under the Schedule Head “Heavy and Fine Chemicals”. 6.1. It is the say of the respondent that the complaint dated Page 4 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER 07.01.2015 was received from Kamdar Hect Rakshak Union regarding 11 employees whose provident fund was not deducted by the establishment in relation of these persons. The permission was obtained from the Central Analysis Intelligence Unit ('CAIU' for short) for field investigation in that matter on 01.05.2015, Enforcement Officer visited the establishment and issued the Spot Memo dated 01.05.2015 directing the establishment to produce the records investigating the complaint regarding 11 persons. 6.2. According to the respondents, the establishment submitted records along with the list of branches with strength of employees and also requested fifteen days' time to produce the records in respect of the employees engaged through contractors. The respondents issued letter No.514 dated 05.06.2015 to the establishment to produce the records which was replied on 11.06.2015 informing the organization that 11 persons who have preferred complaints are not their employees and that there was no relationship of the employer and employees between them. By way of communication dated 12.06.2015, the establishment informed that they were unable to produce the old records as their units are located at various locations in India and the record is no longer available from the year 1996 to 2015. It is also the say of the respondent that the establishment did not provide complete records and was withholding crucial information. It is further the say of the respondent that during the inquiry on 17.12.2015, a squad of officers was constituted to conduct a thorough inspection of the establishment. The squad visited on 20.01.2016, where also the petitioner failed to produce records, therefore, a Spot Memo was issued in this regard to the establishment. Thereafter, due to transfer or leave of officers, the squad was reconstituted and inquiry under Section 7A was Page 5 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER initiated by way of impugned notice which is still under process and the last date of hearing was fixed on 23.01.2017. According to the respondents, the authorities has not sought the documents from the date of inception, but has sought documents from the date of last inspection till March, 2015. The petitioner Company since is having registered office at Ahmedabad, the regional office of Ahmedabad would have jurisdiction over all the offices of petitioner Company and that the inspection is to be carried out where multi location establishment are filing returns and remittances at a single location and to check whether compliance position is available from the returns and remittances as submitted by the establishment. When the inspection had taken place in the establishment, the petitioner Company had been submitting documents of all the units across India as and when called upon and had raised objections only when they were unable to explain the issues raised in the impugned memo/ notice. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner Company is challenging the inquiry proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, which is investigative in nature and that furnishes no cause of action for the petitioner Company to approach this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Act, according to the respondents, is a legislation for providing social security to the employees working in any establishment engaging 20 or more persons on any day. It provides for compulsory deduction of provident fund from employees and a contribution from the employer which has deposited in the worker's account in the Employees Provident Fund office. The Act also provides insurance benefits to the employees. The provident fund and other contributions are deposited by the employer by the 15th date of (English Calender) the next month in which the employee has worked in the Page 6 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER establishment and the dues become payable to him, because the worker had already performed the work upto the last day of the previous month. The contributions is to be deposited by the employer only after beneficiary worker had already worked and thus earned such amount in terms of the contract of employment and the provisions of the Act. Any effort by the employer to deny the employees the legitimate dues, need to be looked upon critically with the object and purpose of the Act in mind. In case of failure of applicability of the Act, the procedure under Section 7A of the Act is initiated for determining the dues and recovery action for the purpose of compelling the employer to deposit the legitimate dues. It is emphasized that the inspection was entrusted to enforcement officer in continuation to his earlier investigation wherein the report was submitted on 30.07.2015, which revealed that the establishment failed to produce records with respect to complaint and recommended to initiate the inquiry under Section 7A for the determination of dues in respect of non enrolled eligible employees engaged. It is also stated that entire procedure followed is in accordance with law and the inspection is to be carried out where multi location establishments are filing returns and remittances at a single location, to check whether compliance position is available from the returns and remittances as submitted by the establishment. 7. The Additional affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner, where it is emphasized that the petitioners are not against the inquiry initiated under the Act, but the grievance of the petitioner Company is that the respondent No.1 had initiated inquiry under Section 7A of the Act. Since the record is old and not traceable by the petitioner Company, the record demanded is also beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, in as much as the record pertains to the units of the Page 7 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER petitioner Company situated outside the State of Gujarat at Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Andra Pradesh, Punjab and West Bengal. It is with this grievance the petitioner had approached this Court that the documents demanded by the respondent No.2 are not only old but are in respect of the contracts which have expired long back and it is not possible for the petitioner Company to produce the documents. 7.1. Another aspect which has also been questioned, is that there are large number of contractors working with different units of the petitioner Company in the State of Gujarat, who have the contracts with various other establishment and therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner Company to provide details of the contractors. According to the petitioner, Reference (LCA) No.1357 of 2010 was rejected by the Labour Court and then the Special Civil Application No.14172 of 2017 was preferred by those 11 drivers. Hence, the petitioner Company is not liable to deposit contribution in respect of such drivers. 8. This Court has heard learned senior advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi appearing for learned advocate Mr. Kunan Naik with learned advocate Mr. Utsav Parikh and Vivan Shah for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. E. Shailaja for all the respondents. 9. It is urged by learned senior advocate Mr. Trivedi that the petitioner is ready to co­operate with the inquiry, however, what is objected is that there is no time limit prescribed under the Act within which proceedings under Section 7A could be initiated and the extent to which period is covered by it. He has also urged that the respondents are not likely to end inquiry and it is also equally necessary for the Court to satisfy itself that it is not Page 8 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER going to flare up other regional offices. The necessity for maintaining the records in Income Tax Departments is also restricted to 7 years and the petitioner has already maintained it for 7 years and is ready to discharge his dues, if there be any. The circular of the department insist on the local office to inquire into the matter and not to be monopolized by the head office and inquiry under Section 7A is not to be converted into fishy inquiry. There is no reference any further to local officers on which the office in Ahmedabad is acting, therefore also it is urged that those employees and the records which have been called for, according to learned advocate Ms. Shailaja, the petitioner has agreed to make available all the records for the year, 2005 to 2015. Moreover, the paragraph No.36 of the scheme makes principal employer liable in relation to all the establishment, and whose employee's inspection has not been done for last ten years there is no time limit schedule under the Act. Since it has not been done, it can be done at any number of years. Ordinarily in the main branch, the regional provident fund has power to initiate the inquiry and also to take further action and after calling from different establishment for inquiry, if it is found responsible, the principal employer will have to be made accountable, in the instance case if not made responsible, then it will start now. 10. Having heard both the sides and extensively considering the material on record at this stage, at the outset it is to be stated that there shall be no interference in the inquiry conducted by the authorities. However, the said inquiry needs to be regulated for which two questions are required to be answered by this Court while permitting the respondents to carry on the obligation of inquiry. Firstly, is in respect of limitation as there is a complete absence of limitation period Page 9 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER under the statute, hence, what could be the limitation period during which the respondents be permitted to initiate inquiry and secondly from amongst the respondents who would be authorized to conduct inquiry and to take further action, if necessary, against the petitioner or whose main office is located in Ahmedabad. Contrary to this is whether every regional office located elsewhere also would be then permitted to initiate the inquiry against the main office of the petitioner. Both the issues deserve parallel consideration. 11. At the outset, for deciding the above referred aspects, both the circulars which are sought to be relied upon by the respondent authorities require consideration. The circular dated 01.01.2016 is for ensuring compliance in respect of multi locational establishments, it provides that enrollment of workers engaged by multi location establishment, especially through contractors or on contract is an enduring issue. Most of the complaints relating to non enrollment of employees under EPFO is found pertaining to this category of employees. The parliamentary committees seized of the matter and instructions have been received from Government of India also to ensure that all such employees are enrolled under EPFO and extended due benefits, after the matter had been reviewed. Instructions issued read as follows, “2. The matter has been reviewed and following instructions are being issued to ensure enrolment of all such eligible employees under EPFO:­ i. It shall be the responsibility of the concerned RO/SRO to ensure that all employees working within its physical jurisdiction and who are eligible to be enrolled as PF members are so enrolled. Page 10 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER ii. This has to be ensured irrespective of the fact whether any of such employees belong to an establishment which has been issued the PF code number by another RO/SRO. iii. The RO/SRO within whose jurisdiction such employees are working shall be referred toas “Local Office” for the purpose of ensuring compliance of such employees under the EPF and MP Act, 1952. The RO/SRO where the establishment is registered under the EPF and MP Act, 1952, even though its employees are working into the physical jurisdiction of another RO/SRO, shall be referred to as “Main Office” for the purpose of ensuring compliance in respect to such employees under the Act. iv. The local office shall cause inspection of the establishment, record the particulars of the employees found working on site and verify the compliance status in respect of all such employees. The verification in respect of employees belonging to establishment registered with local office shall be done with reference to office records. v. For verifying compliance status of employees belonging to an establishment which has been issued EPF code number by another RO/SRO, the local office shall ensure that a reference is made to the said main office containing details of the on site physical inspection visit. vi. The said reference shall include name, father's/ spouse's name, date of birth, date of joining, wages, UAN/PF account number, (if available) PAN (if available), Aadhar (if available) and mobile number (if available). vii. The main office once it receives a reference from the local office, shall verify its records and if required cause physical inspection of the registered office of the establishment within its jurisdiction and submit a comprehensive report to the local office containing the details specifically in respect of the employees whose Page 11 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER list has been received from the local office as also any other details which are revealed by such inspection. viii. The main office shall complete this task in not more than 30 days after receiving a reference from the local office. 3. Thus, irrespective of the RO/SRO where the provident fund code number has been issued to the establishment, it shall be the responsibility of the RO/SRO within whose jurisdiction employees of such establishment are physically working, to ensure compliance under the EPF and MP Act.” 12. Thus, the Main Office is where the establishment is registered under the EPF and MP Act, 1952 whereas the “Local Office” is where the employees are working within the jurisdiction of RO/SRO for the purpose of compliance of this very Act. 12.1. The local office is empowered to cause inspection of the establishment and record the particulars of the employees found working on site as also verify the compliance status in respect of all such employees. Such verification in respect of employees belonging to establishment registered with local office is to be done with reference to office records. For verifying compliance status of employees belonging to an establishment which has been issued EPF code number by another RO/SRO, the local office shall ensure that a reference is made to the main office containing details of the on site physical inspection visit. It is thus to be done by local office and the said reference shall include name, father's/ spouse's name, date of birth, date of joining, wages, UAN/PF account number, PAN, Aadhar and mobile number, etc. The main office on receiving reference from the local office, shall verify its records and if required, cause Page 12 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER physical inspection of the registered office of the establishment within its jurisdiction and submit a comprehensive report to the local office containing the details specifically in respect of the employees whose list has been received from the local office as also any other details which are revealed by such inspection. The main office shall complete the task in not more than 30 days after receiving a reference from the local office. 12.2. This circular therefore, makes it abundantly clear that regardless of the RO/SRO where the code number of provident fund has been issued to the establishment, the responsibility to ensure compliance under the said Act is of the RO/SRO within whose jurisdiction employees of such establishment are physically working. In other words, it is not the main office where registration of the establishment is made but, the RO/SRO within whose jurisdiction the local office is situated and where employees of such establishment work physically, would have authority to inspect and verify compliance status. It also can send a request in the form of reference of verification to the Main office which on physical inspection of registered office submit a comprehensive report. 12.3. So far as the circular dated 21.07.2017 is concerned, it refers that there are many establishment which have employees working at different locations and branches, but, the payment of PF dues of all the workers is made under a single PI code number. There were demands to give a facility for field offices to monitor compliance in their inspection area or information driven scrutiny of compliance. Accordingly, a facility has been provided to such employers to furnish their location­wise employees particulars where an employer can declare for each employee the period for which the employee has worked at Page 13 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER particular branch/ location by utilizing the facility provided for this purpose in the employer portal at unified portal. He should use his login to add all the branches/ locations of the establishment in the form 5A. The period of posting of employees at various branches/ locations can be declared by the employer by using the Member Location Mapping option under the Establishment tab in the employers portal. It also provides that it shall be mandatory on the part of all such multiple location establishments to file the details of location wise employees which will enable the concerned offices to view the location of the employees in the ECR through field office interface of unified portal. 12.4. Reading both these together make it amply clear that the situation of the main office where the provident fund code number has been issued to an establishment but not to all the regional offices and the employees of the provident fund organization to view the details of employees location whereas the online visit is made available and it is expected that the employer would accordingly access to the said links and upload the file entering the data. Year 2016 circular also makes it clear that in ensuring the EPFO Act, it will be the responsibility of the concerned RO/SRO to ensure that all employees working within its physical jurisdiction and who are eligible to be enrolled as PF members, are so enrolled. It is in fact the reference from the local office for verifying the compliance status with employees belonging to the establishment, it is expected to go to the main office and the main office is required to complete this task, on receiving the reference on evidencing the record and carry out physical inspection of the registered office of the establishment within its jurisdiction and submit report to the local office. Page 14 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER 12.5. It is thus contrary to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent in compliance of the order of this Court dated 16.12.2019 which states by making available the records of the competent authority with respect to the establishment like the petitioner which is a multi location establishment but reporting compliance by filing returns and making remittances at a single location where its main unit is located and is covered by the circular dated 01.01.2016 and 21.07.2017 which clearly specifies that the local Regional Office in whose jurisdiction the unit lies will do the inspection and forward report to the Regional Office where main unit lies. If the local unit is separately covered under Section 2A, then local office may choose to initiate 7A inquiry. However, in the case there is no 2A coverages local office has to simply forward the inspection report to Regional Office where its main unit is covered. Thereafter, suitable further action is to be taken by Regional Office, Ahmedabad. 12.6. Section 2A provides that where the establishment consists of different department or branches, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment. It is clear that if the activities of establishment indicates that the working is part of the same establishment merely because the establishment consists of different departments or branches will not make any difference therefore, it is functional integrity which needs to be satisfied, it is not common ownership which will be sufficient to satisfy whether the branches or the unit is part of the same establishment or not. It is thus clear that any establishment which claims to have different departments or branches where the same is situated in the same place or Page 15 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER different place, the Court will consider whether it works as the same establishment or not, it is to be applied as functional integrity. In the instance case, it is claimed by the petitioner that all offices and branches situated in different States of this Country is part of the same establishment. Every State has got different factories or research establishment or the department. It not disputed by the respondent authorities that it is not part of the same establishment therefore there shall be coverage of 2A as it is also part of the same establishment which is also accepted by the respondent authorities. 13. It is where the establishment is located which would work as the main office and in the instance case, the office is situated at Ahmedabad. There is only one provident fund code which is operating for branch and its offices. For the purpose of those contractors hired and engaged by the petitioners it is not disputed that they have taken separate EPF code. Those employees or the workers who have been hired by the contractors, the details would lie with the concerned local office which will be located at different places. However, it would be required of the petitioner to know and possess details of those contractors being the principal employer and obligations of contractors and those of the employers have been made very clear under the Employees Provident Fund, Scheme, 1952. 14. Section 36 provides for duties of the employers and every employer shall send to the Commissioner within fifteen days of the commencement of this Scheme a consolidated return in such form as the Commissioner may specify of the employees required or entitled to become members of the Fund showing the basic wage, retaining allowance and dearness allowance etc. Every employer shall maintain such accounts in relation to the Page 16 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER amounts contributed to the fund by him and by his employees as the Central Board from time to time, directs, and it shall be the duty of every employer to assist the Central Board in making such payments from the fund to his employees as are sanctioned by or under the authority of the Central Board. Section 36A provides for furnishing particulars of ownership and Section 36B provides for duties of contractors that every contractor shall within seven days of the close of every month submit to the principal employer a statement showing the recoveries of contributions in respect of employees employed by or through him and shall also furnish to him such information as the principal employer is required to furnish under the provisions of the scheme to the Commissioner. This details have been gone into ordinarily to note that there is no reference about the local office to the main office. 14.1. It is in relation to the 11 drivers who had made complaint to the regional office that inquiry has been initiated as mentioned herein above. They had already agitated their grievance by making reference LCA No.1357 of 2010 before the Labour Court which came to be rejected against them and in connection of the present petitioner by award dated 01.12.2016 aggrieved workmen have chosen to approach this Court by Special Civil Application No.14172 of 2017 and the matter is pending before this Court for adjudication. It is thus clear, so far as the inquiry in relation to the 11 persons are concerned, competent Court is already seized with the said matter and hence, the respondent authority is not required to go into any of their grievance at this stage. If their grievance is ventilated before the respondent authority that they had initiated the inquiry against the petitioner resulting into dealing with the inquiry under Section 7A of the Act, there is no material independent of Page 17 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER this complaint with the 11 drivers there is anything came on record which has started this as mentioned above. In absence of reference of local office and in absence of any other details and for the reason that dealing with the inquiry much grievance is raised by the petitioner before this Court, however it is been still accepted that last inspection was made in the year 2009 and thereafter at the main office or in any of the branches no inspection has been carried out. It is given to understand that in some of the branch offices inspection has been carried out and the concerned regional officer was found satisfied with records which was been evidenced by the petitioner. Be that as it may having reply in the notice to present record of the year 2005 to 2015 but later on having stated on oath to make available the record of 2010 onwards, the Court finds no reason at this stage of inquiry and show cause notice the Court to interfere, at the same time the Court is going to let the respondent authority note that when it initiated any inquiry which is with certain limitation of the time period for which it can inculcate such task inasmuch as the statute does not provide for limitation. The respondent demanded the documents from the petitioner was from the year 1972 and evidencing from the reply of the petitioner, it is mentioned that only after last inspection, the inquiry is made by the respondent and such last inspection was in the year 2009, December, the inquiry is restricted to 2010. With regards to the communication sent to the petitioner dated 04.11.2015 is concerned, this aspect has been clarified and the inquiry has been restricted from 2010 to 2015. The question therefore needs to be answered that this period could be permitted and whether it could be adopted by the respondent authority if for some reason inspection has not been carried out for long time. When could be reasonable period is not provided by the statute. Page 18 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER Whether this Court direct any specific period for purpose of carrying out inquiry. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 352, considered the question of Revisional powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, that suo moto powers can be exercised at any time although no time has been prescribed for exercise of such power. The respondents had made an application before the Sub Divisional Officer in 1993 seeking revision of order passed in 1976. The SDO, by invoking revisional power under Section 257 allowed the revision and set aside the order of Tahsildar. There was no time limit prescribed for exercise of power under a statute. The Apex Court held that it would be held in reasonable time. The Court held that ordinarily revisional power under Section 257 needs to be exercised within a period of three years. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer's order was set aside while so holding it has referred to various decisions of this aspect as what could be termed as reasonable time period. “7. Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code empowers State Governmentand certain Revenue and Survey Officers to call for and examine records and proceedings of Subordinate Officers. Thus, a power of revision is conferred on the State Government and certain Revenue and Survey Officers under Section 257. Section 257 reads thus : \"Section 257 ­ Power of State Government and of certain Revenue and Survey Officers to call for and examine records and proceedings of subordinate officers­ (1) The State, Government and any Revenue or Survey Officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector, or a Superintendent of Land Records, in their respective departments, may call for Page 19 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate Revenue or Survey Officer, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. (2) A Tahsildar, a Naib­Tahsildar, and a District Inspector of Land Records may in the same manner call for and examine the proceedings of any officer subordinate to them in any matter in which neither a formal nor a summary inquiry has been held. (3) If in any case, it shall appear to the State Government, or to any officer referred to in sub­ section (1) or sub­section (2) that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, it or he may pass such order thereon as it or he deems fit: Provided that, the State Government or such officer shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any question or right between private persons without having to the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order: Provided further that, an Assistant or Deputy Collector shall not himself pass such order in any matter in which a formal inquiry has been held, but shall submit the record with his opinion to the Collector, who shall pass such order thereon as he may deem fit.\" A close look at the aforesaid provision would show that there is no time limit fixed for exercise of power of revision by the revisional authority. The question is, could it be exercised at any time. 8. While dealing with the question like the present one, a 3­Judge Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, 1969 2 SCC 187, with reference to Sections 65 and 211 of Bombay Land Revenue Act, 1879, held Page 20 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER thus : \"11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised. 12. It seems to us that Section 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Section 211. Under Section 65 of the Code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Sections 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector on October 12, 1961 i.e more than a year after the order and it seems to us that this order was passed too late.\" 9. While dealing with the suo­motu revisional power under Section 84­C of the Bombay Tenency and Agricultural Lands Act, 1976, this Court in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, 1997 6 SCC 71 held that generally where no timelimit is prescribed for exercise of power under statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time. This is what this Court said: Page 21 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER \"Section 84­C of the Act does not prescribe any time for initiation of the proceeding. But in view of the settled position by several judgments of this Court that wherever a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time­ limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case the transfer took place as early as in the year 1972 and suo motu enquiry was started by the Mamlatdar in September 1973. If sale deeds are declared to be invalid the appellant is likely to suffer irreparable injury, because he has made investments after the aforesaid purchase. In this connection, on behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on a judgment of Justice S.B. Majmudar (as he then was in the High Court of Gujarat) in State of Gujarat v. Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah (Spe. WA No. 2770 of 1979) disposed of on 1­3­1990, where in connection with Section 84­C itself it was said that the power under the aforesaid section should be exercised within a reasonable time. This Court in connection with other statutory provisions, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, 1969 2 SCC 187 and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India, 1994 1 SCC 44 has impressed that where no time­ limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under Section 84­C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time.\" 10. Recently, in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., 2007 11 SCC 363 while dealing with the power of revision under Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, it has been held: \"17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been Page 22 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER prescribed therefore, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. 18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. 19. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub­section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years.\" 11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statue does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein. 12. Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which power of revision may be exercised would be three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub­ Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse Page 23 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of Tehsildar passed on March 30, 1976 is flawed and legally not correct.” 16. The Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2008) 5 SCC 756, was examining the judgment and order of High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereby the order of Presiding Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 15.12.1999 had been upheld and the direction issued thereunder to remand the case for redetermination of the contribution with respect to the liability of the appellant Corporation has been maintained. In this matter the appellant Corporation which was company registered under the Companies Act, came into existence on 01.04.1974. The proceedings for the deposit of the provident fund under the provisions of the Act were initiated by the issuance of a notice dated 12.12.1988 under Section 7A of the Act for determination of the amounts due from Corporation. This notice pertained to the period 1982­1988. The Corporation, through its Regional Manager, contended, inter alia, that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it inasmuch as it was not an industrial establishment in terms of Section 2(e) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The view was taken that the Corporation was covered under Section 1(4) of the Act and it has voluntarily submitted to its coverage and had been allotted a provident fund code number as well. The Commissioner then went into the question as to whether the persons employed by the contractor could be said to be the employees of the Corporation and hence entitled to the benefits of the Act, it was concluded that the said employees were in fact employees of the Corporation and therefore subject to the Page 24 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER provisions of the Act and also drew up an assessment of the amounts due from the Corporation. An appeal was preferred before the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that Corporation was covered by the provisions of the Act but it opined that the matter was stale and pertained to the year 1982 and therefore remitted to the Commissioner for redetermination of the amount due. The Corporation preferred the writ petition before the High Court impugning the order of the Commissioner where the High Court dismissed the writ petition. In this circumstances, the Appeal transferred before the Apex Court but it was fairly submitted by the Apex Court that the Corporation voluntarily submitted that it was covered by the provisions of the Act and that the employees in question were seasonal employees and the matter pertained to a long gone period i,e.1982­1988, the record pertaining to the employees was not available either with the Corporation or with the contractors and it would be appropriate that the impugned orders be quashed as they would not serve any useful purpose. It has also been pleaded that although there was no time limit prescribed under the Act within which proceedings under Section 7A could be initiated, but under the broad principle that a reasonable period ought to be read into the statute, the delay of 16 years from 192 could not be justified. The learned counsels for the respondents however argued that the Tribunal and the High Court had granted a limited relief to the employees inasmuch that the examination of the claim was to be limited only to those employees who could be identified and that as the authorities below had exercised their authority with respect to a beneficent legislation for the weaker sections, it would be inappropriate to interfere with the impugned orders. The Apex Court held that the inaction on the part of the Page 25 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER Commissioner to initiate proceedings within a reasonable time has to be deplored. However, in wake of Corporation submitted that it was covered under the Act and in view of the limited relief granted by the authorities below and by the High Court, the Apex Court was disinclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. The Appeal was dismissed but reiterate the recommendation that the amounts due from the Corporation will be determined only with respect to those employees who are identifiable and whose entitlement can be proved on the evidence. In the said event the record is not available with the Corporation, it would not be obliged to explain its loss, or that any adverse inference be drawn on this score. 17. The initiation of procedure of the notice in the case of the present petitioner is in the year 2015, the initial inquiry as was given to understand to the petitioner was of 1972, however, according to the respondent, it was not 1972 but from the year 2000. It was thus later on changed to the period for which the inspection admittedly has not been carried out. The fifteen years period which has been contemplated by the respondent also has been deplored by the petitioner urging also whether the period contemplated being fifteen to sixteen years is permitted. 18. Bearing in mind the very object and the reasons of the Act under which the inquiry is made and considering the fact that it is weaker section and labour class with which the respondent authorities are dealing and whose interest needs to be zealously guarded and taken care of, the Commissioner shall have to be naturally be vigilant and inaction on its part cannot be permitted. For this very vital and crucial reason particularly, the Court holds that there is no reason much less any cogent ground emerging for not allowing any inquiry, and interfere at the stage Page 26 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER of show cause notice. 19. In wake of the petitioner itself having agreed to the very inquiry from the period from 2010 and five years period could be even stated to be a reasonable period to which otherwise the petitioner has agreed to. It is to be specifically emphasized at this stage that the law is trite that no interference is desirable at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Entire factual matrix needs to be regarded by the concerned authorities. However, for two reasons, this Court deemed it fit to interfere and restrict the period of inquiry since the respondents chose to inquire after a very long period of 15 years. Merely because limitation period of inquiry is not prescribed under the statute, even if the object is laudable, the authority requires to act within a reasonable time period and cannot be permitted to be arbitrary in its approach and the period of five years can be said to be a reasonable period. Again, as noted above, inquiry is not made at the respective place by the RO/SRO, where alleged violation is contemplated and as is provided under the circular and guidelines of 01.01.2016 and instead, at the office of regional commissioner this inquiry is initiated in total disregard to the said guidelines through circular. 20. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed restricting the scope of inquiry under Section 7A to the period from January, 2010 to the date of notice. It is also further permitted to the petitioner to provide the entire record by the electronic mode as it can be seen from both the circulars relied on by the petitioner that compliance under the statute and under their guidelines are permitted by electronic mode by the organization. The petitioner shall be permitted to also disclose all the names of the Page 27 of 28 C/SCA/18496/2016 ORDER contractors who are having independent code and if the regional office is entitled to making inquiry in relation to the same, they will call the concerned contractors for the same purpose. 21. It is also clarified that as per the circular of 01.01.2016, it is the responsibility of the RO/SRO within whose jurisdiction employees of such establishments are physically working to ensure compliance and not of regional Commissioner where the establishment is situated. If any further steps/ process needs to be taken, consent of the concerned RO/SRO shall be obtained. If any inquiry or inspection has been already carried out in the concerned branch or office, the report of such branch or office shall need to be regarded before the office of regional commissioner proceeds any further in this regard. With this, the petition is disposed of, with no order as to cost. (SONIA GOKANI, J) Manshi Page 28 of 28 "