Disposed

T.Satheesh Kumar v. Regional Provident Fund Commr.

Kerala HC4 Jun 2009WP(C)/25283/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging coercive recovery steps for EPF contributions by a school manager, the High Court of Kerala, noting the long pendency of the case, directed the 1st respondent Commissioner to reconsider the disputed computation of amounts within three weeks and keep all recovery steps in abeyance for three months.

What did the court decide?

Fifth respondent directed to consider petitioner's objections to demand computation; recovery steps stayed for three months pending this adjudication.

T.Satheesh Kumar Vs Regional Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 25283 of 2003(I)

PETITIONER(S):

T.SATHEESH KUMAR, MANAGER AND SECRETARY, SREE CHITHIRA THIRUNAL RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL SCHOOL, KUNNATHUKAL, (VIA) NEYYATTINKARA.

¶10

BY ADV.MR. K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO. 1016, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS (KERALA, LAKSHADWEEP AND MAHE), BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶15

ADV. MR.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1,R2

¶16

MR.SARATH CHANDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).25283/03

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN-CUM-RECEIPT FOR THE AMOUNT REMITTED BY PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND.

¶22

EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN-CUM-RECEIPT FOR THE AMOUNT REMITTED IN RESPECT OF EPF

¶23

EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN-CUM-RECEIPT FOR THE AMOUNT REMITTED IN RESPECT OF EPF

¶24

EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.28.7.03 FOR THE AMOUNT REMITTED

¶25

EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED DT.21.7.03 BY R2. EXT.P6:TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.31.7.03 SUBMITTED BEFORE R2.

¶26

EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.KE/12866/RECOVERY/TVM / 2006/5970 DT.1.2.2006 BY R2.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶28

EXT.R2(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY R2 DT.4.4.01 EXT.R2(b):- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY R2 DT.12.7.01 EXT.R2(c):- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY R2 DT.26.11.01

¶29

EXT.R2(d):- TRUE COPY OF THE LEVY ORDER NO.KR/12866/ENF.V(3)/2001 DT.23.1.2001

¶30

EXT.R2(e):- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE R2 DT.21.6.02 okb

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge

WP(C).25283/03

ORDER ON I.A.4789 OF 2006 IN WP(C).25283 OF 2003

¶35

DISMISSED.

¶36

SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

4.6.2009

okb

/True copy/

P.A. to Judge

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶42

-----------------------------W.P.(C)No.25283 OF 2003

¶43

------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2009.

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

The petitioner is the Manager and Secretary of a Residential Central School. The petitioner is challenging coercive steps initiated against him for realisation of amounts of contribution payable to the Employees' Provident Fund Organization, by the institution. Ext.P5 is the show cause notice issued to the petitioner threatening issuance of warrant of arrest, alleging default in payment of the amounts of contribution due. Through Ext.P5 an amount of Rs.9,47,888/was demanded towards contributions due for the period from 6/2001 to 9/2002. The contention of the petitioner is that only an amount of Rs.2,63,374/- is actually due, and disputing correctness of the demand he had submitted Ext.P6 representation to the 2^nd respondent. But without considering Ext.P6 coercive steps were threatened, is the complaint.

¶46

By an interim order dated 6.9.2003 issued by this Court, the steps for recovery was stayed on condition of the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.2,63,374/- within two weeks. But after remitting an amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs the

¶47

W.P.(C).25283/03

¶48

¶49

petitioner sought extension of time for making payment of the balance amount. It is noticed from the records that this Court has granted extension of time on various occasions. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with another notice, Ext.P8, demanding a sum of Rs.3,30,314, being contributions due for the period from 10/2003 to 2/2005 and from 3/2005 to 8/2005. The petitioner sought stay against the said notice through I.A. No:4789/2006. This Court was pleased to grant an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 on condition of the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/on or before 2.5.2006, and the balance amount in five equal monthly instalments payable before 5^th day of every month. The counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no specific instructions regarding the total remittances made by the petitioner after filing of the writ petition.

¶50

The disputed question pertains to correctness of amounts due as Employer's Contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund Organization. Such a dispute cannot be adjudicated and resolved in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner has got any grievance against the demands made, it is for him to work out his remedies before the appropriate authorities of the Provident Fund Organization. However, considering the fact that the writ

¶51

W.P.(C).25283/03

¶52

¶53

petition was pending since the year 2003 onwards and this Court had issued various conditional interim orders, I am inclined to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the disputes raised by the petitioner regarding correctness of computation of the amount due. If the petitioner submits his objections against correctness of the computation of the demands made against the institution, before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, within a period of three weeks from today, the said authority is directed to consider his objections and to take a final decision on the issue, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of such objection. On such finalization, a fresh demand showing detailed computation statement shall be issued to the petitioner. Needless to say that credit should be given to whatever amount paid by the petitioner after filing this writ petition. In order to facilitate an adjudication as directed above, all further steps for recovery of the amount due shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today.

¶54

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶55

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶56

okb

T.Satheesh Kumar v. Regional Provident Fund Commr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Satheesh Kumar v. Regional Provident Fund Commr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.D.Paul Vs Union of India

P.Sudhakaran Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

Mathew Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Musthaffa Vs Chief Manager,Kfc

C.P.Nazeena Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment),Kann

Alla Antony Vs the Asst.Exe.Engineer