1. Heard Ms. Lalita Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. The order sheets of various dates indicate non-appearance on behalf of the respondents after 2021. It was also observed by the Commission on 20.02.2023 that a last opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the respondents or else the matter shall be proceeded ex parte and shall be heard finally.
2. Today again none has appeared for the respondents.
3. The revision arises out of an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Lucknow dated 13.08.2002, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent, Mr. Rishi Agarwal was allowed. The complaint narrated that a deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- had been made under a finance scheme of M/s. Uplease Financial Services Limited, Lucknow, and on account of non-payment thereof on its maturity in the year 2000, that was further witnessed by the dishonoring of the cheque issued by the respondent no. 2, the complaint was instituted alleging deficiency in services.
4. The complaint was therefore allowed for a sum of Rs.1,13,441/- together with interest thereon w.e.f. 04.06.2000 till the date of payment as compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs.
5. The said order was challenged in appeal before the State Commission by the present petitioner, who was the opposite party no. 2 in the original complaint. M/s. Uplease Financial Services Limited, Lucknow did not question the same. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 23.01.2008 upholding the order of the District Commission. The order of the District Commission  dated 13.08.2002 has therefore become final as per Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the respondent no. 2.
6. It may be pointed out that the liability was imposed as joint and several and this order of the District Commission was confirmed by the State Commission.
7. Against the order of the State Commission, Writ Petition No. 1487/2008 was filed by the petitioner before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in which an interim order was initially granted on 20.03.2008, but the Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 25.11.2013 on the ground that the Writ Petition was not maintainable keeping in view the alternative remedy of revision being available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. The present Revision Petition has been filed thereafter and was entertained wherein the following order was passed on 03.09.2015:

“Since the present proceedings arise out of the order, dated 23.01.2008, passed by the State Commission, which is stated to be in Appeal arising out of the order, dated 13.08.2002, passed by the District Forum in Complaint No. 1486 of 2000, the Revision Petition has not to be registered as the Executive Revision Petition.  Necessary correction in the record shall be carried out.

We may note at this juncture that against the order, dated 27.11.2003, passed by the District Forum in Execution Application preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant, it appears, instead of filing a substantive Appeal against the said order, the Petitioner herein filed an Application in the afore-noted Appeal.  However, the main Appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 23.01.2008, the Petitioner seems to have challenged it in a Writ Petition before the High Court.  The said Writ Petition was also dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 25.11.2013.  On the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the present Revision Petition has been filed, questioning the correctness of the order, dated 23.01.2008, which, as noted above, was against the order passed by the District Forum in the Complaint.

Adverting to the merits of the present Revision Petition, at the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision dated 02.02.2011 rendered by this Commission in Revision Petitions No. 1434-1435 of 2007.  According to the learned Counsel, the issue raised in the present Revision Petition stands concluded by the said decision, wherein it has been held that for the actions or inactions of U.P. Lease Financial Services Ltd., the present Petitioner, though it holds a substantial stake in the said Company, cannot be held liable.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant prays for some time to go through the said order and make his submissions.

List for hearing on 05.11.2015.”

9. It appears that the contesting respondent, Mr. Rishi Agarwal put in appearance and notices were also issued to M/s. Uplease Financial Services Limited. However, keeping in view the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners that it being a holding company was not liable for any act or omission on the part of the subsidiary, the following observations were made. The order dated 29.09.2016 is extracted herein under:

“During the course of  hearing, Learned Counsel  appearing for  U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd., has submitted that UPLEASE  Financial Services Ltd., is an independent existing entity  and the Petitioner herein  has nothing to do with its operations. 

 In view of the said submission and the fact that the said Respondent has not responded to the notice issued in this Revision Petition, we direct that a notice shall issue to the Managing  Director  of UPLEASE Financial Services Ltd., stated to be having its Office at  Uptone Bhavan, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, to appear in person, on 22.11.2016, along with the relevant records and assist us in making appropriate orders in the case.

 We clarify that if the Managing Director  fails to appear on the next date of hearing, we shall be constrained to secure his presence by  issue of  Warrants.

We permit the Respondent No.1, the Complainant  to take out ‘Dasti’ notice for service, in addition  to the normal process. 

 In the meanwhile, it will be open to the Executing Court  to proceed further in the Execution Application, in so far as the UPLEASE Financial Services Ltd., is concerned, as there is no stay of execution proceedings against it.”

10.  It appears that in the meantime attachment proceedings were undertaken after the execution proceedings were instituted and the executing court was allowed to attach the account of M/s. Uplease Financial Services Limited in order to realise the proceeds arising out of the decree of the District Commission. The order dated 11.04.2017 passed by this Commission is extracted herein under:

“Although, during the course of hearing on several dates, it was recorded that the Managing Director of the Petitioner, namely, U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd., had been given the additional charge to look after the affairs of the Uplease Financial Services Limited but in the affidavit filed on 03.03.2017, pursuant to our order dated 28.02.2017, the Petitioner has taken a sommersault to the effect that it has no control over the affairs of Uplease Financial Services Limited.  In the light of the said stand, and bearing in mind the fact that Uplease Financial Services Limited has not challenged the order dated 13.08.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Lucknow in Complaint No.1486 of 2000, in the first instance, we direct the concerned District Forum at Lucknow to forthwith take up the Execution Application and issue appropriate directions to ensure that its order dated 13.08.2002 is complied with.  We may note that according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Uplease Financial Services Limited holds a Current Bank Account No.1501 in Canara Bank Sapru Marg, Lucknow.  It will be open to the Executing court to attach the said account or any other account, as may be pointed out by the Complainant, wherein the proceeds of any of the assets belonging to Uplease Financial Services Limited had been credited.

List for directions on 24.07.2017.”

11. Subsequently, on 05.04.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced submissions contending that keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. v. ABS Spinning Orissa Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6928 of 2002) decided on 01.10.2008, the petitioner cannot be held liable and consequently, the revision petition in so far as the petitioner is concerned deserves to be allowed. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.(Supra), which arose out of the judgment of the High Court of Orissa, upholding the said judgment is extracted herein under:

“This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 9th October, 2001 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in OJC No.2851/2001 allowing the Writ Petition partly on the ground that the holding company cannot be held liable for the recovery of provident fund dues of its subsidiary company. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent No.2 being holding company of respondent No.1 is liable to pay the provident funds dues outstanding against its subsidiary company i.e. respondent No.1. However, Mr.B.B.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that respondent No.2 being holding company of respondent No.1 is liable to pay the provident funds dues outstanding against its subsidiary company i.e. respondent No.1. We are not in agreement with the same as we are of the view that the subsidiary company has an independent existence as against the holding company and, therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to clear the provident funds dues of its subsidiary company, namely, the respondent No.1. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. However, it will be open for the appellants to proceed against respondent No.1 in accordance with law.”

12.  It appears from the order sheets that since the executing court had been permitted to proceed with the execution as against M/s. Uplease Financial Services Limited, respondent no. 2 herein, the accounts seem to have been attached and the complainant appears to have received the amount to the satisfaction of the decree of the District Commission.
13. Even though there is no such proof on record to that effect yet the continuous absence of the respondent/ complainant possibly is on account of the satisfaction of the decree, which fact has neither been informed, intimated or even disputed before this Commission.
14. Consequently, we are proceeding to dispose of this revision petition on the presumption that the respondent/ complainant has received the amount to the satisfaction of the decree and is no longer interested in contesting this revision petition.
15. In so far as the legal submission raised by Ms. Kohli is concerned on behalf of the petitioner, it appears to be directly supported  by the ratio of the judgment of the Orissa High Court as confirmed by the Apex Court in the order quoted above that has also been brought on record, for which reference can be had to paragraph 17 of the judgment, the extract whereof is quoted herein under:

“Thus, on a consideration of the aforesaid provisions of law, the petitioner No. 1 a holding company would not come within the scope or ambit of employeras contended by the learned counsel for the E.P.F. Commissioner, Section 2-A of the Act declared that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situate in the same place or in different places all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment. This provision equally is inapplicable to the present case since a subsidiary, independently registered as a company would not be construed to be a Department or a branch of an establishment meaning a holding company. Section 8-F of the E.P.F. Act contemplates mode of recovery. Under Clause (i) of Sub-section (3) thereof, the Provident Fund Authorities so authorised may by notice require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the employer or as the case may be, the establishment or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the employer or as the case may be; the establishment, to pay to the Commissioner either forthwith upon the money becoming due, or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due from the employer in respect of the arrear or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount. Under Clause (x), if a person to whom a notice under the sub-section is sent, fails to make payment, the Provident Fund Commissioner or any other person may take further proceedings for the realisation of the amount as if it were an arrear due from him, in the manner provided. It cannot be construed from this provisions that the petitioner No. 1-Company either has held money or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the subsidiary so as to come within the purview thereof, to bind itself to pay the dues of petitioner No. 2.”

16.  It is this judgment which has been upheld by the Apex Court that has been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and quoted hereinabove. Consequently, the ratio having been upheld by a speaking order of the Apex Court, the contention raised therefore deserves to be accepted. There is no dispute raised that the petitioner company is not a holding company or that the respondent no. 2 was only a subsidiary company having a separate status. There is no evidence of any liability being obligated or inherited by the petitioner in respect of the disputed amount that seems to have been discharged by the respondent no. 2. In the wake of the aforesaid facts, the revision petition is partly allowed to the extent on the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and the liability as fixed by the district Commission to be joint and several shall stand modified to be exclusively as against the respondent no. 2, M/s. Uplease Financial Services Limited, keeping in view the fact that the respondent no. 2 never filed any appeal nor has contested this revision petition, and further, permission was granted by this Commission to proceed on the execution against the respondent no. 2 only. The revision petition is disposed off in the above terms.