LI Network
Published on: February 19, 2024 at 12:27 IST
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to adhere to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’s order, mandating the deposit of Rs 90,18,89,719 towards provident fund, pension fund, and insurance fund contributions for Powrakarmikas.
The directive covers the period from January 2011 to July 2017.
Justice KS Hemalekha, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed the Corporation’s petition challenging the attachment order dated 23.01.2018.
The BBMP argued that the order, issued without prior notice of a hearing, was unjust.
The dispute arose when BBMP failed to furnish PF passbooks, account details, and contribution cards to workers, with contractors neglecting to remit PF contributions and withholding annual statements of workers’ accounts.
The BBMP Powrakarmikara Sangha union approached the authority, seeking compliance with the Employers’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952.
The Court analyzed Sections 206-212 of the Companies Act, emphasizing that the initiation of an SFIO probe under Section 212 does not impede an ongoing Section 210 investigation.
It clarified that once the SFIO takes over, previous inquiries are halted, and documents are transferred to the SFIO.
Addressing Exalogic’s argument that an SFIO probe requires a “report under Section 210,” the Court held that an “interim report” is sufficient.
Despite Exalogic’s claim that the SFIO probe would result in parallel proceedings, the Court maintained that the SFIO’s multi-disciplinary approach was necessary for examining the allegations.
The Court underscored the BBMP’s failure to comply with statutory obligations and emphasized the importance of upholding social justice for Powrakarmikas.
These workers, predominantly from the Dalit community, endure challenging working conditions, including health risks and lack of basic facilities.
The Court held that the BBMP’s actions caused financial and mental suffering to the workers, emphasizing the need to implement the authority’s order under Section 7A.
Advocate Maitreyi Krishnan represented the petitioners, with Advocate Avani Chokshi. Advocate Sanjeev B.L appeared for R-1, and Advocate Shwetha Anand represented R-2.
Case Title: BBMP POWRAKARMIKAR SANGHA AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike