Regional Provident Fund Commr vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd

\2363 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SLP(c) NO.(s). 4453/2011 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR. AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. Respondent(s) (Office Report) (For final disposal) Date : 23/07/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Appellant(s) Ms. Aparna Bhat ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy ,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of signed order. (Neeta) (Usha Sharma) Sr. P.A. Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2014.08.02 12:43:18 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6769 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4453 of 2011) REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR. AND ANR Appellant(s) VERSUS TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. Respondent(s) O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal has been preferred by appellants against the order dated 15th June, 2010 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Notice of Motion No. 3694 of 2009 in Appeal (St) No. 636 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 1246 of 2005.

By the impugned order, the High Court refused to condone the delay of 1087 days in filing the appeal on the ground that the order impugned has already been acted upon by the applicant / appellant.

On 4th February, 2011 this Court while issuing notice passed the following order:

"Delay condoned. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20th September, 2006 preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed because of delay of 1087 days in filing the same. Learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioner submits that he has apprehension that there has been collusion in this matter by the officers of the petitioner and he has recommended departmental inquiry against those officers. Issue notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted."

2

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of the suggestion made by the Learned Solicitor General of India departmental proceedings have been initiated against the officerss/employees. Reports of the departmental proceedings have already been furnished with regard to four officers/employees. Once the rest of the reports are received, the competent authority would after following the adequate procedure will pass the appropriate order. Learned counsel for the appellant further, contended that the Division Bench failed to appreciate that earlier the High Court itself had passed the order on 15th February, 2011 and gave liberty to the Regional Provident Commissioner to determine the dues payable by respondent-establishment. In view of the High Court's order the appellant determined the dues payable

respondent-establishment amounting to Rs.1,88,41,71,019. In vie w

of the nature of case and the amount involved, the High Court ought to have condone the delay of 1087 days.

Per contra, according to learned counsel for the respondent, the provident fund scheme of respondent-Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. has a better scheme and is more beneficial to its employees. It was taken into consideration by the Central Government in granting exemption in favour of the respondent. He further submitted that as the dispute is continuing for the last more than 35 years, the Court should not condone the delay the reason for which has not been explained.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has already initiated departmental proceedings against its employees and it involves amount of more than Rs.188 Crores, we are inclined to condone the delay of 1087 days in filing the appeal.

We, accordingly, condone delay, set aside the impugned order dated 15th June, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and remit back the appeal to the High Court for its decision on merit. It is expected that the appeal will be decided at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations.

..............................J. ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA )

..............................J. ( S.A. BOBDE )

by

3

NEW DELHI; JULY 23, 2014