Partly allowed

Employees Provident Fund Organization v. M/S Amazon Sellers Services Pvt., Ltd.

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2021WA/310/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the High Court condoned a 304-day delay in filing. It stayed a Single Judge's order directing the refund of attached funds, ruling that such interference without a prior challenge to the levy was premature pending an appeal at the Appellate Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal condoned. Impugned direction to refund amount stayed pending appeal disposals at the Appellate Tribunal.

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs M/S Amazon… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.310/2020 (L-PF)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, #13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. NANDITA D. HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S. AMAZON SELLERS SERVICES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 8^TH FLOOR, BRIGADE GATEWAY, 26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 055. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR CORPORATE COUNSEL MR. PRITHWISH BHATTACHARYA. ... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. K. SRIBHOOMI YESASWINI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL; b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.58209/2018 DATED 24/04/2019 TO THE EXTENT OF DIRECTING THE REFUND THE AMOUNT WHILE DISPOSING THE IA-1/2019.

¶16

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Though this appeal is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.

¶20

The appellant is the Regional Office of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24/04/2019, passed in W.P.No.58209/2018, this intra-court appeal has been preferred.

¶21

On 16/12/2020, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:

¶22

"ORDERS ON I.A.NOS.2/2020 & 1/2020

¶23

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.2/2020, which is an application filed seeking condonation of delay of 304 days in filing the appeal.

¶24

Appellant’s counsel drew our attention to the fact that as against the order dated 24/04/2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.58209/2018. W.A.No.1756/2019 was filed. By order dated 20/11/2019, the said appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to make an appropriate application in the writ petition. Subsequently, an application was filed in the writ petition and it was

¶25

¶26

disposed of on 24/02/2020 and thereafter on 28/05/2020, this appeal has been filed. Therefore, the delay has occurred due to the bona fide and unintentional reasons and the same may be condoned.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that an appropriate order may be passed by condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

¶28

Being satisfied with the cause shown, the delay of 304 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2020 is allowed.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent in detail.

¶30

What was assailed in W.P.No.58209/2018, was the order dated 14/12/2018 (Annexure-B), passed by the appellate Tribunal adjourning the appeal to 12/03/2019. In the appeal before the Tribunal, what was challenged was the order dated 15/11/2018, passed by respondent under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provident Fund Act, 1952 in levying Rs.1,58,60,223/as damages. In the writ petition, there was no challenge to the order dated 15/11/2018 (AnnexureE), which was the subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority. However, the learned Single Judge granted stay of the order dated 15/11/2018 in the writ petition on 03/01/2019. However, on 03/01/2019, the Authority attached the bank account of the respondent and recovered the damages levied. Subsequently, alleging that the recovery was made by the authority ignoring the

¶31

¶32

order of stay granted in the writ petition, an application (I.A.No.1/2019) was filed by the respondent in the writ petition seeking a direction to return the amount that was attached from the bank accounts of the respondent.

¶33

Once again we find that till then there was no challenge to the order dated 15/11/2018 by which damages of Rs.1,58,42,777/- was imposed, before the learned Single Judge. However, by the impugned order, learned single Judge has directed return of the amount attached from the bank accounts of the respondent and has also directed that the stay of Annexure-E, order dated 15/11/2018 shall be continued till the next date of hearing before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.139/2018. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be heard. In the circumstances, we find that in the absence of any challenge to the order dated 15/11/2018 as well as the attachment of the bank account of the respondent in the writ petition, the learned single Judge could not have granted stay of the said order and also could not have directed refund of the amount attached.

¶34

It is stated at the Bar that the next date of hearing of Appeal No.139/2018 before the Appellate Tribunal is on 22/02/2021. Be that as it may, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24/04/2019 directing the return of the amount is stayed until further orders."

¶35

Learned counsel for the respective parties submitted at the Bar that Appeal No.139/2018 filed by the

¶36

¶37

respondent before the Appellate Tribunal is pending adjudication.

¶38

In the circumstances, the direction of the learned single Judge dated 24/04/2019 directing the return of the amount shall remain stayed till the disposal of Appeal No.139/2018.

¶39

It is needless to observe that the impugned direction of the learned single Judge which remains stayed in this appeal shall be subject to the result of Appeal No.139/2018.

¶40

Appeal No.139/2018 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

Both parties to co-operate with the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Employees Provident Fund Organization v. M/S Amazon Sellers Services Pvt., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees Provident Fund Organization v. M/S Amazon Sellers Services Pvt., Ltd.

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

Smt. Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Royal Education Society Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Keshav Vajapayam Vs The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Canara Bank Vs Mysore Coffee Curing Works Ltd.

Smt. M.Anasuya @ Anasuyamma Vs the State of Karnataka by

The President Vs Sri Gireesh