Hotel Sagar, Mavoor Road, Kozhikode-673001 vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Kozhikode-673006

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 19468 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **HOTEL SAGAR, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, A.UMAYYA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.T. HAMSA, RESIDING AT KANAYANNGHOD HOUSE, KANNAMANGHALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.C.B.MUKUNDAN SRI.P.S.GIREESH SRI.ARJUN R NAIK** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISYA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B. NO.1805, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673006.** **BY ADV ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **-:2:-** W.P.(C) No.19468/21 **“C.R.”** ## **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.** ## **----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.19468 of 2021** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 22[nd] day of October, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner's request for an opportunity for cross-examining the enforcement officer through physical mode rather than through virtual mode and for the physical mode of hearing was declined by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in proceedings under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the EPF Act). 2. Petitioner contends that cross-examining the enforcement officer through virtual mode is practically ineffective and would not serve the purpose, especially in the light of the voluminous nature of information and materials to be confronted with in the instant case, and will practically amount to infringing his rights under the principles of natural justice. It was argued that this was a fit case to permit a physical mode of crossexamination and hearing. 3. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it is pleaded that the issue arises under section 7-A of the Act pursuant to an order of remand from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour W.P.(C) No.19468/21 ## **-:3:-** Court, Ernakulam. It was further averred that petitioner’s request to have a physical mode of cross-examination and hearing was denied, based upon the directions issued by the head office of the Employees Provident Fund Department, which directed the conduct of cases through virtual hearing and by video conferencing. It was stated therein that for the last more than one year, due to Covid-19 protocol and restrictions, all courts and quasi-judicial authorities have been following virtual hearing and since new rules have been framed for virtual hearing and examination of witnesses, the order declining the request of the petitioner based upon Annexure R(A) Circular dated 01.10.2020, does not warrant any interference. 4. I have heard Adv. Ashok B. Shenoy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 5. Petitioner's request to have a physical mode of crossexamination and hearing was declined by the respondent by Ext.P8 order, the relevant part of which reads as below; _“The request of the advocate for extending time of appearance in view of covid 19 pandemic is allowed. With regard to his request for conduct of hearing in physical mode is not possible for the very reason of existence of covid-19 pandemic. However, all assistance including providing of terminal with internet connection with (sic) be available in the office premises for employer of representative of the employer. As_ W.P.(C) No.19468/21 ## **-:4:-** _such the next hearing will be conducted through virtual mode only in the link to be provided through e-mail._ _The prayer to arrange for cross examine of Enforcement Officer who had visited the establishment is accepted and Smt. Bonnysha U.B., the then Enforcement Officer will be available for cross examine in the next date of hearing._ _The case is accordingly posted to 06.09.2021 at 11 am.”_ 6. The existence of Covid-19 pandemic is stated to be the reason for denying the request of the petitioner for a physical mode of crossexamination and hearing. However, the virtual mode of hearing and cross-examination has been permitted. 7. The denial of the request for a physical mode of crossexamination and hearing is purported to be based upon the Circular dated 01.10.2020, issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation wherein, it was directed that hearing in all enquiry cases under sections 7- A and 14B of the Act, including cases remanded by higher judicial forums for fresh adjudication, were to be held in virtual mode only. 8. The objectives of video conferencing system launched by the EPF is stated to be :- - _i. Enable Adjudicating Officers (AO) to discharge their quasijudicial duty to hear parties for adjudicating the issues under inquiry_ - _ii. Enable parties to make submissions, present their case & file documents from remote location of their convenience instead of physical appearance before the AO at EPFO Office_ - _iii. Integration of Virtual hearings with e-Court process on_ **-:5:-** W.P.(C) No.19468/21 ## _Compliance e-Proceedings Portal_ 9. A perusal of the said Circular reveals that it refers to a virtual mode of hearing alone in contradistinction to evidence through virtual mode of cross-examination. In fact, one of the conditions for permitting virtual hearing is stipulated as 'sufficient evidence being available on record for assessment of dues'. Examination of an Enforcement Officer is a mode and means of adducing evidence to enable proper assessment of the dues. Thus, even going by the conditions stipulated for conducting virtual mode of hearing as stipulated in the Circular dated 01.10.2020 issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, there is a requirement that sufficient evidence must be already on record. This indicates that the Circular does not apply to cases where oral evidence is required to be adduced. A perusal of the various clauses in the Circular will reveal that the virtual mode of cross-examination of witnesses is not contemplated under the said Circular. 10. Though there is a need to enhance the cause of justice by resorting to technological advancements, we are in an era of first-time virtual court proceedings. Our infrastructure has not advanced the way technology has. In our endeavour to keep pace with technology, the cause of justice should not be at peril. In the absence of rules in force and proper infrastructure to ensure the sanctity of cross-examination, I must, with the fear of being retrograde in approach, point out, that time is not yet **-:6:-** W.P.(C) No.19468/21 ripe to permit cross-examination by virtual mode in the proceedings of the respondent, especially when one of the parties to the litigation insists on the physical mode of cross-examination. Further, there is no difficulty for the witness to appear in person for cross-examination and nor are there any hurdles, of substance, to insist on virtual mode of cross examination in the instant case. 11. Cross-examination of witnesses through physical mode and through virtual mode by recourse to video conferencing methods can have different effects, depending upon the nature of the case and the evidence sought to be adduced. The virtual mode of cross-examination can be resorted to only when the infrastructure is totally in existence and sufficient protective machinery are available to ensure the effectiveness and sanctity of such cross-examination. Unfortunately, other than the Circular issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, nothing has been brought on record about the machinery available with the Employees Provident Fund Organisation to ensure the sanctity of crossexamination of a witness while considering the claim under sections 7-A or 14B of the Act. The cross-examination of a witness through the virtual mode, must of necessity have the mechanism to safeguard the sanctity of the procedure. There is nothing on record to persuade this Court to assume that such safeguards are in place to ensure the sanctity of the virtual cross-examination. W.P.(C) No.19468/21 ## **-:7:-** 12. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider video conferencing for marital disputes in **Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh** [(2018) 1 SCC 1]. The observations of the Court that if both parties give consent to have the witness examined through video conferencing also throws light on the fact that in cases where the parties are not in consensus regarding video conferencing for examination of witnesses, permission cannot be granted. The decision in **State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B. Desai** [(2003) 4 SCC 601] Supreme Court had observed that recording of evidence through video conferencing satisfied the requirements of section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and is a valid procedure. 13. Notwithstanding the above decisions, each case has to be viewed in light of the peculiar facts available. In marital disputes or in other proceedings where the witness cannot be procured with ease or witnesses have difficulty in appearing before the Court, or for other special circumstances, cross-examination through video conferencing can be permitted with special arrangements for ensuring the sanctity of the evidence. 14. In this context, it is relevant to note that, the High Court of Kerala has formulated Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (for short 'the Rules) which has come into force from 25.08.2021 onwards. The said Rules apply only to the High Court, Subordinate Courts and to Commissioners appointed to record evidence and to an W.P.(C) No.19468/21 **-:8:-** officer appointed to conduct an inquiry. A reading of Rule 3 indicates that the provisions of the Rules have applicability to all stages of judicial proceedings. The Rules have no applicability to proceedings before the Provident Fund Commissioners, which are not judicial proceedings. The Rules do not encompass quasi-judicial proceedings within its ambit. There is a dearth of legal prescription in the form of Rules and even sufficient machinery to justify the procedure of resorting to virtual examination of witnesses before the respondents, especially when one of the parties object to such a procedure. 15. It is relevant to bear in mind in this context, that, our Country has already achieved vaccination of more than one hundred crores of its citizens and that establishments and institutions have started reopening and functioning in physical mode. The stultifying restrictions imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic have been relaxed. The struggling efforts to overcome Covid-19 pandemic is slowly but steadily marching towards fruition. When most institutions have returned to normalcy, there is no reason or cause to insist on cross-examination of witnesses in EPF cases, be carried out through virtual mode alone. The trial courts in Kerala have already started permitting evidence of witnesses to be taken physically, of course, in due compliance with the Covid-19 protocols. No special circumstances are shown to exist in the instant case which compels this Court to favour the procedure of adopting the virtual mode of cross- **-:9:-** W.P.(C) No.19468/21 examination in the instant case. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order, declining the physical mode of cross-examination of the witnesses, is unsustainable. 16. Accordingly, Ext.P8 order issued by the respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to permit physical mode of crossexamination of witnesses as sought for and allow physical mode of hearing to the petitioner in the pending case, pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE** vps W.P.(C) No.19468/21 ## **-:10:-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19468/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.9.2019 PASSED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN APPEAL NO.36 OF 2018.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.KR/KKD/14012/ENF 1(1)/2019/3561 DATED 4.10.2019 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.KR/KKD/EOSQUAD/14012/2015 DATED 4.1.2016 SUBMITTED TO ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE BY ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH ATTACHMENTS THEREWITH.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO. KR/KKD/14012/EO(BUB)(GK)/2020 DATED 17.1.2020 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT BY ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITH ATTACHMENTS THEREWITH.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 16.3.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL, ADV.C.B.MUKUNDAN BEFORE RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 30.6.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL ADV.C.B.MUKUNDAN BEFORE RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 24.8.2021 SENT BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL, ADV. C.B.MUKUNDAN TO RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF DAILY ORDER SHEET DATED 25.8.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS NO.KR/KKD/14012/ENF1(1)/2021 ALONG WITH ITS READABLE COPY.** W.P.(C) No.19468/21 ## **-:11:-** **RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.C1/3(28)2016/7A & 14B/1161 DATED 1.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, HEAD OFFICE, NEW DELHI.**