Partly allowed

Central Board of Trustees, Epf, v. M/S Vijaya Halocoils Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2024WP/16593/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The EPF authority challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order setting aside its Section 7A assessment of Rs.13,66,968/- against an establishment. The High Court found no calculation details supported the assessment, set aside both orders, and remitted the matter to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for fresh determination with proper calculations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order and Commissioner's order set aside; matter remitted to Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for fresh reconsideration with calculation details.

Central Board of Trustees, Epf, Vs M/S… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7043 WP No. 16593 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 16593 OF 2014 (L-PF)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF, THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SRO, MYSORE, EPF ORGANISATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NO.109-128, GAYATHRIPURAM II STAGE, MYSORE-570 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S VIJAYA HALOCOILS PVT. LTD HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE-570 019 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. …RESPONDENT

¶9

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR .,ADVOCATE)

¶10

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ;QUASH THEORDER OF THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, DATED 24.12.2013 VIDE ANN-A

¶11

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:7043 WP No. 16593 of 2014

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard Sri M. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶16

The present petition is filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mysuru, assailing the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 24.12.2013, whereby, by the impugned order, the order passed by the petitioner under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘the Act’ for short) was set aside.

¶17

Respondent is an establishment covered under

¶18

the provisions of the Act, enquiry under Section 7A of the Act was initiated by the petitioner and amount of Rs.13,66,968/was assessed by the order dated 21.10.2005. The said order was assailed before this Court, this Court directed the petitioner to consider the matter afresh and subsequently, the present order dated 15.02.2012 under Section 7A of the Act, determining the

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7043 WP No. 16593 of 2014

¶20

dues after deducting the amount already remitted and arrived at Rs.6,70,181/- payable by the respondent within 15 days from the date of the order. The said order was assailed by the respondent before the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order of the Commissioner-petitioner herein.

¶21

The respondent filed statement of objections, inter alia, contending that the order passed by the petitioner, directing the respondent to pay the dues was without furnishing the details, as to how the assessment has been arrived by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no materials were placed for determining the employees provident fund contribution at Rs.13,66,968/- and in the absence of calculation sheet, the determination amount by the petitioner was not justified and learned counsel would submit that in the event, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be reconsidered, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the petitioner-Commissioner, as the authority

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:7043 WP No. 16593 of 2014

¶24

herein has not assessed the contribution of the respondent by any material.

¶25

The contention of the respondent-establishment

¶26

is that the respondent has paid EPF Contribution as per Section 6 of the Act and therefore, claiming the EPF on the entire wages in a sum of Rs.13,66,968/- by the petitioner on other allowances like HRA, conveyance allowance, Bonus, shift allowance is illegal.

¶27

The details of calculations for arriving at a conclusion for Rs.13,66,968/- has not been placed by the petitioner and the assessment whether it was on the gross wages paid to the employees including all the allowances or was it on the basic wages, the petitioner has not placed any details of calculations as to how the PF contribution is assessed to arrive at an amount of Rs.13,66,968/-. In the said circumstances, without adverting to the merits and demerits of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal as well as the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the matter back to the Assistant Provident Fund

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:7043 WP No. 16593 of 2014

¶30

Commissioner, Mysuru for furnishing the details of calculations as to how Rs.13,66,968/- has been arrived.

¶31

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part.

¶35

ii. The impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and the Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mysuru are hereby set aside.

¶36

iii. Matter is remitted back to the Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for reconsidering the matter afresh, by furnishing the details of calculations for arriving at EPF calculations assessment of the respondentestablishment in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Central Board of Trustees, Epf, v. M/S Vijaya Halocoils Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Board of Trustees, Epf, v. M/S Vijaya Halocoils 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

Sri Annegowda Vs M/S J K Tyres and Industries Ltd.

M/S Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of Karnataka

T Y Subramani Vs the Divisional Controller

The Management Fdc Limited Vs B Rajakumar

Madegowda Vs the Managing Director

Sri Edwin Jayakumar Vs the Divisional Controller