Dismissed

M/S Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Employees Provident Fund Organ

Jharkhand HC5 Nov 2019WPC/1298/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court dismissed the plea challenging an order imposing default damages and interest under the EPF Act. The Court held the order was well-reasoned as it detailed the default period and calculated dues, and noted the petitioner bypassed the statutory appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the interim application were dismissed, rejecting the petitioner's contentions.

M/S Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan Vs Employees… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.-1298 of 2010

¶4

M/s. Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, a Charitable Trust having its Multi Speciailty Hospital and Diagnostic Centre at Nagarmal Modi Path, Upper Bazar, Ranchi through its Honorary Secretary, Sri Bishnu Lohia …Petitioner

¶5

-V e r s u s-

¶6

Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Ranchi through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

¶7

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Ranchi

¶8

Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Upper Bazar, Ranchi

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Satish Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Gutpa, Advocate

¶12

For the Resp.nos. 1 & 2 :- M/s. Kislaya Prasad & Sandeep Verma, Advocates Order No.-05 Dated: 05.11.2019

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. JH/RO/RNC/PD/2052/2009/1672 dated 18.02.2010 (Anneuxre-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no.-2) whereby a demand of Rs.7,24,038/- under Section 14-B and interest under Section 7-Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short “the Act, 1952”) has been raised. Further prayer has been for quashing the order of attachment dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 2 for realization of the aforesaid amount in pursuance of the impugned order dated 18.02.2010.

¶14

2. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 is a non-speaking one as no detail for levying damages under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the Act, 1952 has been given by the respondent no. 2. It has merely been stated in the said order that the employer in relation to the concerned establishment failed to pay the provident fund and allied dues for the period from 08/1999 to 12/2006 within the scheduled time as required under the Act and the Schemes framed thereunder and hence the said order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order on the concerned issue.

¶15

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, on the contrary, submits that the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 is well reasoned and the same requires no interference of this Court under the writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that after making the assessment under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952, the fact regarding the period of default becomes apparent before the assessing authority. The orders for computation of default/damages under Section 14-B and the interest under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952 are consequential in nature. The amount is computed keeping in view the period of default and the slab of interest rate mentioned in para 32-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Otherwise also, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner bypassing the provision of statutory appeal provided under the Act, 1952 itself.

¶17

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶18

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 is non-reasoned one, cannot be accepted. The period of default has been mentioned in the impugned order. The table containing the amount deposited by the petitioner as well as the dues to be paid by it under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the Act, 1952 have duly been mentioned by the respondent no.2 in the impugned order thereby arriving the balance amount to be paid by the petitioner under the aforesaid slabs. The petitioner has not raised any issue of jurisdictional error committed by the respondent no. 2 in passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2010. The Court is also mindful of the fact that the petitioner did not take step for filing statutory appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952.

¶19

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2. The writ petition is thus dismissed.

¶20

7. I.A. No. 1453 of 2010 also stands dismissed.

¶21

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶22

Ritesh

M/S Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Employees Provident Fund Organ

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Employees Provident Fund Organ

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

Similar cases

Sita Ram Sah Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.Deputy

Sidho Kanhu Aadivasi Uchch Vidyalaya Lakhipur through Its Head Master Pranab Kumar Vs Human Resource Development

Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhujender Rawani Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporatio

Bisho Sah And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Manki Braj Kishor Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.