9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order of blacklisting has serious consequences on the party being blacklisted. In the present case, the letter dated 30.04.2013 did not indicate that any punitive measure was contemplated; the petitioner was called upon to provide certain details and was cautioned that "any lapse on submission of details will be viewed as gross violation of Labour Laws/Service tax rules". Thus it is apparent in the facts of the present case that no show cause notice as required was issued by the respondent and, consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W. P. (C) 9402/2016 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - Vibhu Bakhru, J. For the Petitioner : Mr Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms Vishakha, Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was furnished by the Employees Provident Fund Organization to the respondent on 08.11.2013. 6. Prior to the aforesaid date, the respondent issued letter dated 30.04.2013, calling upon the petitioner to submit employee wise details of contributions deposited by it for EPF and ESI purposes and the payment of service tax immediately without any delay. The respondent also warned that any lapse on the part of the petitioner would be viewed as gross violation of Labour Laws/Service Tax Rules. 7. Since it is an admitted case that the petitioner had not deposited the complete dues of EPF till that date (and had deposited it on 05.11.2013), the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order of blacklisting has serious consequences on the party being blacklisted. In the case of Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) and Others: (2014) 9 SCC 105, the Supreme Court has termed this as civil death . A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R.K. Associates v. The Managing Director, IRCTC Anr.: ILR (2009) Supp.(7) Delhi 1 has also referred to blacklisting in similar terms. It is also trite law that no action for blacklisting can be initiated without a show cause notice. This was authoritatively stated by the Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment Chemicals Ltd v. State of West Bengal Anr: (1975) 1 SCC 70; the relevant extract of which is set out below:- Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is part. (e) Whether and to what extent did the contractor plan, initiate or carry out the wrongdoing. (f) Whether the contractor has accepted responsibility for the wrongdoing and recognized the seriousness of the misconduct. (g) Whether the contractor has paid or agreed to pay all criminal, civil and administrative liabilities for the improper activity, including any investigative or administrative costs incurred by the Government, and has made or agreed to make full restitution. (h) Whether the contractor has cooperated fully with the government agencies during the investigation and any court or administrative action. (i) Whether the wrongdoing was pervasive within the contractor s organization. (j) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to black listing, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. 20. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
