FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 26-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. .,.. 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 26, 1989 
[K. JAGANNA1HA SHETIY AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
B 
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 
1952: Section 7A-Determination of amounts payable by employer as 
contribution-Statutory authority-Whether duty bound to summon 
evidence when requested by party, before coming to proper conCiusion. 
Respondent No. 1-the Provident Fund Conunissioner called c 
upon the appellant-Food Corporation of India to deposit contribution 
payable by it under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous 
Provisions Act, 1952 and the scheme thereunder, in respect of workers 
employed by the contractors appointed by the appellant for handling 
storing and transporting food grains and other articles in its depots in D 
Rajasthan. On appellant's non-compliance, Respondent No. 1 made an 
ord_er under Section 7 A of the Act determining the amount payable by 
the appellant. Against the aforesaid order, the appellant filed writ peti-
tion before the High Court, which dismiss~d the same. Hence the 
appeal, by special leave, by the appellant-Corpotation. 
It W.JIS contended that the appellant was denied a reasonable 
opportunity to produce actual proof of identification of workers in 
respect of whom contribution was payable inasmuch as Respondent No. 
1 neither gave notice to contractors, who were in possession of the 
relevant lists of workers, nor made them parties to the proceedings, 
E 
despite its repeated requests. 
f 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: The Commissioner, while conducting an inquiry under 
Section 7 A of the Employees, Provident Fund ancl Miscellaneous Provi-
sions Act, 1952 has the same powers as are vested in a court under the 
G 
Code of Civil Procedure for trying a suit. Thus, the Commissioner is 
authorised to enforce attendance in person and also to examine any 
person on oath. He has the power requiring the discovery and produc-
tion of documents. This power was given to the Commissioner to decide 
not abstract questions of law, but only to determine actual concrete 
differences in. payment of contribution and other dues by identifying the 
H 
755 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
workmen. The Commissioner should exercise all his powers to collect 
all evidence and collate all material before coming to proper conclusion. 
That is the legal duty of the Commissioner. It would be failure to 
exercise the jurisdiction particularly when a party to the proceedings 
requests for summoning evidence from a particular person. [757H; 758A; F-H/ 
B 
c 
D 
F 
a 
H 
In the instant case, the appellant-Corporation had some pro· 
blems in collating the lists of all workers engaged in depots scattered at 
different places. It requested the respondent-Commissioner to sum· 
mon the contractors to produce the respective lists of workers engaged 
by them. However, the appellant-Commissioner did not summon the 
contractors, nor the lists maintained by them. The matter is, therefore, 
remitted to the Commissioner for fresh disposal. [757F; 759AJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4552 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.1988 of the Rajas· 
than High Court in C. W.P. No. 13 of 1987. 
G.L. Sanghi and Y.P. Rao for the Appellant. 
C.S. Vaidyaoathan, S.R. Setia and K.V. Mohan for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special leave granted. 
Having heard counsel on both sides and having perused the 
material on record, we are of opinion that the matter requires recon-
sideration by the Provident Fund Commissioner. 
The Food Corporation of India has depots located at various 
places in Rajasthan for handling storing and transporting food grains 
and other articles. It has appointed contractors for execution of such 
works and the contractors in turn engaged some workers. In respect of 
sul:h workers, the Provident Fund Commissioner called upon the 
Corporation to deposit contribution payable under the Employees, 
Provident Fund Acr and the scheme framed thereunder. When there 
was non-compliance, the Commissioner made an order under section 
7 A of the said Act determining amount payable by the Corporation . 
Being aggrieved by that determination, the Cmporation moved the ... 
-· 
• 
,, 
~ 
' 
~ 
... 
-··C 
F.C.l. v. P.F. COMMR. [SHEITY, J.] 
757 
High Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High A 
Court has dismissed the p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.