CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEESversusM/S INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD.

1130                      [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 1130              [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A                    CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
                                         v.
                     M/S INDORE COMPOSITE PVT. LTD.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 7240 of 2018)
 B                                JULY 26, 2018
          [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
              Practice and Procedure – Dismissal of writ petition by
       unreasoned order – Propriety of – Appellant issued summons to the
       respondent for non-payment of the Provident Fund contribution in
 C
       the year 2005-2006 and ordered the respondent to pay inter alia
       damages for the delayed payments – Respondent filed appeal, which
       was allowed by Employees Provident Fund Tribunal – Appellant
       filed writ petition, which was dismissed by Division Bench of the
       High Court – On appeal, held: Division Bench dismissed the writ
 D     petition cursorily without dealing with any of the issues arising in
       the case as also the arguments urged by the parties in support of
       their case – Only expression used by the Division Bench in disposing
       of the writ petition is “on due consideration” – It is not clear as to
       what was that due consideration which persuaded the Division
       Bench to dispose of the writ petition – Courts need to pass reasoned
 E     order in every case containing facts, issues arising in the case,
       submissions urged by the parties, legal principles applicable to the
       issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the
       issues arising in the case – Division Bench failed to keep these
       principles in mind, causing prejudice to the parties – Impugned
 F     order set aside – Matter remanded to the Division Bench for deciding
       the writ petition on merits – Employees Provident Fund and
       Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – ss.7A, 7C, 7Q and 14B.
              Allowing the appeal, the Court
              HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition
 G     filed by the appellant cursorily without dealing with any of the
       issues arising in the case as also the arguments urged by the
       parties in support of their case. [Para 13] [1133-E]
              1.2 Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial
       mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal
       and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning
 H
                                       1130
       CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. M/S INDORE                             1131
                COMPOSITE PVT. LTD.

and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings                A
impugned in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed,
while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of
legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult to sustain
such order of the Division Bench. The only expression used by
the Division Bench is “on due consideration”. It is not clear as
                                                                           B
to what was that due consideration which persuaded the Division
Bench to dispose of the writ petition because in the earlier paras
only facts are set out. Time and again, Supreme Court has
emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in
every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of
the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case,        C
the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles
applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of
the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the
counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. The Division
Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of
                                                                           D
the writ petition. Such order has caused prejudice to the parties
because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one
party has won and other has lost. The case is remanded to the
Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petition
afresh on merits in accordance with law.[Paras 14-16]
[1133-F-H ; 1134-A-C]                                                      E
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7240
of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W. P. No. 1046 of 2017.
      Dushyant Parashar, Adv. for the Appellant.                           F
      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 dated
01.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at            G
Indore in Writ Petition No.1046 of 2017 whereby the Division Bench of
the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein
and affirmed the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No.214(8) of 2015.
                                                                           H
1132             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A            3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and it would be
       clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.
              4. On 19.05.2008, the appellant-Central Board of Trustees issued
       summons under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and
       Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)
 B     to the respondent-M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. for non-payment of
       the Provident Fund contribution in the year 2005-2006 on the wages
       lesser than the minimum wages prescribed for the employees under the
       category of semi-skilled. The representative of the respondent attended
       the enquiry and submitted that the Department has not considered non-
       working days of the employees already furnished in Form 3A for the
 C     year 2005-2006 and there are some employees under the category of
       unskilled 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 the
       receipt of that order. It was also stated that the above order under
 D     Section 7A is without prejudice to any action under Sections 7C, 7Q and
       14B of the Act.
              5. On 21.01.2015, the appellant, in exercise of the power under
       Section 14B of the Act, ordered the respondent to pay damages and
       allied dues of Rs.91,585/- for the delayed payments from 01/2007 to 02/
 E     2006 to 05/2013.
             6. Challenging the said order, the respondent filed an appeal being
       ATA No.214 (8) of 2015 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate
       Tribunal, New Delhi. Vide order dated 06.09.2016, the Tribunal allowed
       the appeal and set aside the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the
 F     appellant.
              7. Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition being Writ Petition
       No.1046 of 2017 before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned
       order, dismissed the petition.
            8. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by
 G     way 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 dismissing
       the appellant’s writ petition.
              10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
 H
     CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. M/S INDORE                                  1133
   COMPOSITE PVT. LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal    A
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set
aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench of
the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits in
accordance with law.
      12. After setting out the facts, the Division Bench proceeded to        B
disposed of the writ petition with the following observations in its
concluding paras which read as under:
      “On due consideration of the aforesaid on the basis of the
      fresh documents and affidavit for taking additional
      documents on record, we cannot direct the establishment                 C
      to pay damages for the period from March 2006-April 2010
      when all these objections were not taken before the learned
      Tribunal.
      Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the order
      passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no                D
      case for interference with the impugned order is warranted.
      The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is
      accordingly dismissed.”
                                                    (emphasis supplied)
                                                                              E
       13. In our opinion, the need to remand the case to the High Court
has occasioned for the reason that the Division Bench dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant (petitioner) cursorily without dealing
with any of the issues arising in the case as also the arguments urged by
the parties in support of their case.
                                                                              F
       14. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to
the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and without
there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical
findings on the issues and why the findings impugned in the writ petition
deserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of
the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is    G
difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. The
only 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 due
consideration which persuaded the Division Bench to dispose of the writ
petition because we find that in the earlier paras only facts are set out.
                                                                              H
1134             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A            15. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the
       need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the
       narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues
       arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles
       applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings
       on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for
 B
       the parties in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the
       Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of
       the writ petition. Such order, in our view, has undoubtedly caused prejudice
       to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why
       one party has won and other has lost. We can never countenance the
 C     manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has
       compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the
       writ 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 Bench
 D     of the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits in
       accordance with law keeping in view our observations made supra.
             17. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from making
       any observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinion
       to remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above.
 E     The High Court would, therefore, decide the writ petition, uninfluenced
       by any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law.
             18. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is accordingly allowed
       and the impugned order is set aside.

 F     Divya Pandey                                                    Appeal allowed.




 G




 H