Disposed

U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director v. Regional Employees Provident Fund Commissioner,Gorakhpur and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIC/3728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order holding the petitioner liable as employer under the EPF Act for sugar factories run by member co-operative societies. The court found the submissions prima facie meriting consideration, sought counter affidavits, and stayed the impugned and recovery orders until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Operation of impugned order dated 23.01.2024 and recovery order dated 09.02.2024 stayed till next date of listing.

U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3728 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director Respondent :- Regional Employees Provident Fund Commissioner,Gorakhpur And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Alok Saxena,Ram Pratap Singh Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and Mr. Kumar Jaikrit, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 whose power filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Issue notice to opposite party no. 3.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 23.01.2024 whereby petitioner has been held to be employer for the purposes of Employees Provident Fund and necessary directions have been passed in pursuance thereto.

¶8

It has been submitted that petitioner in fact is the apex body of the co-operative societies who are the actual occupiers of the relevant sugar factories and therefore petitioner would not come within the definition of an employer in terms of Section 2 (e) (i) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 since in terms of aforesaid section, it is only the owner or occupier of a factory or his agent or legal representative which would come within the aforesaid definition and can be fastened with this liability. It is submitted that petitioner being the apex co-operative body is not the appointing or supervisory authority of the workman employed by the sugar factories. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. versus Satrughan Nishad and others reported in (2003) 8 SCC 693.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 1 & 2 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that as has been held in the impugned order, it is petitioner which is the controlling authority and has deep persuasive control over the cooperative society and has therefore been rightly held to be an employer in terms of Section 2 (e) (ii) of the Act.

¶10

Prima facie submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which purpose the opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶11

List this case on 04.07.2024 showing the name of Mr. Kumar Jaikrit as learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶12

Till next date of listing, the operation of impugned order dated 23.01.2024 and the recovery order dated 09.02.2024 shall remain stayed.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 Satish

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director v. Regional Employees Provident Fund Commissioner,Gorakhpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director v. Regional Employees Provident Fund Commissioner,Gorakhpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Yadav @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Meraj Alias Kaliya Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Abhay Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Sanjaya Dikshit Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I)/ Bs and Fc/ New Delhi