The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for a declaration to the effect that the demand notices dated 1-9-1987, 16-9-1987 and 22-9-1987 are illegal, without authority and of no legal effect. The brief background of the dispute is that the petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale, of cotton yarn and cloth amongst other articles.
It was registered under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act No. XIV of 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as Act XIV of 1976). It was pleaded that the petitioner is making payment of the contribution due in the prescribed manner but the respondents proceeded to issue the impugned notices calling upon it to pay additional sums on account of contribution. The petitioner almost simultaneously filed this petition and then a complaint under section 33 of the Act XIV of 1976, which is still pending in view of the injunction order in this writ petition. The writ petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the demand made through the impugned notices is vague. The amount first was to be determined in accordance with law and it is added that the respondents have added the amount at the rate of 50% without application of the mind. It is explained that according to section 13 of the Act of 1976, 50% is the maximum but the respondents were under statutory duty to apply their conscious mind to the facts of the case and then impose the statutory increase. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the respondents cannot ask for arrears for more than 2 years in view of the provisions of Regulation No. 5 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits (General) Regulations, 1980.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the first demand and show-cause notice were issued to the petitioner on 14-12-1978 but the petitioner did not settle the account. The assessm ent was made and conveyed to the petitioner through demand notice dated 1-9-1987. It was made clear in para. 1 at page 2 of this notice that if the petitioner felt that the assessm ent was towards higher side then the petitioner may produce the record of the wages as detailed in the demand notice. The learned counsel submitted that the demand was not made without basis but it was made on the basis of the observations made during the inspection of the premises by the Staff of the Institution and the record available with the Institution. It is added that the Institution proceeded very fairly as it had notified to the petitioner to get the demand corrected with reference to record. The petitioner was given option to disprove the assessment made by the Institution but the petitioner for reasons best known to it did not avail the opportunity.
4. Be that as it may, in view of the order I proposed to make I need not discuss the merits and demerits of the points raised on each side. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that not only the petitioner has remedies in the hierarchy of the Institution under sections 33, 34 and 35 but it had also moved application under section 33 of the Act of 1976 which is still pending.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to decide the complaint of the petitioner under section 33 in accordance with law. The Act of 1976 has clearly provided a detailed machinery for correcting wrong and illegal orders passed by different functionaries of the Institution. In the series section 33 comes first according to which, if the complaint is received or any question or dispute arises as to the matters detailed therein the matter shall be decided by the Institution. The Employees' Old-Age Benefits (Determination of Complaints, Questions and Disputes) Regulations, 1980 notified on 21-7-1980 laid down a detailed procedure. The learned counsel for the respondents
5. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is dismissed as incompetent in view of the pendency of the complaint under section 33. The Institution is directed to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. No order as to costs.