Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 62 of 2020

¶2

¶3

M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi … …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment Govt. of India

¶6

Employees Provident Fund Organization through its Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi

¶7

Employee’s Provident Fund Organization through its Chairman, Central Board of Trustees, New Delhi

¶8

Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (Recover), through its Recovery Officer, Ranchi

¶9

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ranchi

¶10

Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Ranchi. … …. Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-EPFO : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Bank : Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI -----

¶14

Oral Order

¶15

13 / Dated : 11.03.2024

¶16

The account of the Petitioner Company in the State Bank of India (R-5) and Canara Bank (R-6) has been attached by the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 by Respondent no.4 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Writ petition has been filed against the order of attachment of the said account.

¶17

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner that petitioner company has been recently revived/rehabilitated on 13.11.2009 under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). The recovery proceeding arose out of the original order dated 17.10.2003, which was challenged before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. ATA No.842(3) of 2003. The said appeal was dismissed which is under challenge in W.P.3830 of 2010. Main contention is that without awaiting the finality of the order pending in the writ petition, recovery proceeding is being initiated.

¶18

It is argued by Mr. Rupesh Kr. Singh, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, that it is not maintainable in law or on facts. The petitioner claims waiver of damages under Section 14 B, pursuant to the order passed by the quasi-judicial authority which has attained finality. The last order of the Central Board of Trustee dated 12.11.2010 whereby the request for waiver of damages was rejected had been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6235 of 2010

¶19

2

¶20

and instead of pressing for adjudication of that writ petition, instant writ has been filed to restrain the recovery proceeding.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the order dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure-P-1), issued to the State Bank of India (R-5), and another order dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure-P-1-A) issued to the Canara Bank (R-6), attachment of bank account of the petitioner has been passed.

¶22

Before going into the merit of the instant writ petition, it appears that W.P.(C) No. 6235 of 2010 which has been filed against the final order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Central Board of Trustee by which the application for waiving of damages under para 32-B of the Scheme, 1952 and second proviso of Section 14B of Employees’ Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 has been rejected.

¶23

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organization that the impugned order has already attained finality and the petitioner has preferred another W.P.(C) No. 3830 of 2010 for quashing of the order dated 01.06.2010 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal against the levy of damages has been dismissed.

¶24

From the submissions advanced, it appears that instead of pursuing the writ petitions in which the order of recovery dated 01.06.2010 has been challenged, petitioner in the present case has come against the order of attachment passed in pursuance to the recovery order. This Court is of the view that any petition restraining the recovery process, should have been filed in the case where the order of recovery has been challenged. Impugned order has been passed in pursuance to the original order of recovery. It is surprising that instead of pursuing the writ petitions which have been filed against the order of recovery, Petitioner has filed a separate writ petition to stay the recovery proceeding. This Court is of the view that such a course is not open and will be an abuse of writ jurisdiction of this Court to permit the continuation of the said writ Petition.

¶25

Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.

¶26

I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶27

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶28

AKT/Satendra

¶29

Uploaded

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand through CBI

Harish Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

M/S.Heavy Engineering Corporat Vs Employee Provident Fund Oragan

Raju Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pravir Garg Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.