Quashed

M/S. Steel Complex Ltd. v. the Assistant Provident Fund Commnr.

Kerala HC16 Nov 2011WP(C)/20988/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought the quashing of an order rejecting a claim for waiver of PF damages by a sick industrial company. The court held the petitioner entitled to a waiver under the scheme given the change of management and BIFR recommendation, remitted the matter to the Board for disposal after hearing, and directed payment of pending interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner directed to pay interest within two months; matter remitted to Board for reconsideration and disposal within three months after hearing.

M/S. Steel Complex Ltd. Vs the Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 20988 of 2007(W)

¶5

--------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

M/S STEEL COMPLEX LTD., POST BOX NO.42, FEROKE-673 672,KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.UNEENKUTTY

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶10

SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶11

SRI.JAYASANKAR.A.K. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

---------------

¶14

1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

¶15

ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,P.B.NO.1806, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶16

2. THE CENTRAL BOARD PF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAIJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶17

RI & R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 20988 of 2007(W)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1 - COPY O THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.07.1996 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPT. GOVT.OF KERALA.

¶24

P2 - COPY OF THE MODIFIED SANCTIONED SCHEME OF THE BIFR VIDE ITS PROCEEDINGS DATED 03.10.1997.

¶25

P3 - COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIFR DATED 11.03.2004.

¶26

P4 - COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.04.2007 OF THE BIFR.

¶27

P5 - COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2005.

¶28

P6 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED27.01.2005 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 28.02.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIIONER SEEKING WAIVER OF DAMAGES IMPOSED FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2001 TO MARCH 2004.

¶29

P7 - COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

P8 - COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.06.2007 SENT BY THE PETITIIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶31

P9 - COPY OF THE MODIFIED SANCTIONED SCHEME OF THE BIFR DATED 10.06.2010 (WITHOUT ANNEXRES).

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶33

R1(a) - COPY OF THE LETTER OF REJECTING THE WAIVER PETITION OF THE PETITIIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 20988 of 200 7

¶39

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶40

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2011.

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶43

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶44

following prayers:

¶45

Call for the records leading to Ext.P7 communication and to quash the same by the issue of a writ or certiorari.

¶46

Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 application in accordance with law after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶47

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶48

The company is a Sick Industrial Company as defined under

¶49

the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act which deals with the levy of penal charges, the Central Board of Trustees of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation has the power to reduce or waive the damages levied under the section in respect of an establishment which is a sick industrial unit undergoing a scheme of rehabilitation subject to such terms and conditions specified in the scheme. Under Paragraph 32B of the scheme,

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 20988/2007

¶51

¶52

the Central Board may completely waive the damages imposed in respect of a sick industrial company where there has been change of management of the said company or where the BIFR recommends complete waiver. In respect of the petitioner Company, which is undergoing a scheme of rehabilitation, there has been a further change of management pursuant to a joint venture agreement entered into between the Government of Kerala and the Steel Authority of India Ltd. In terms of the agreement, the management and control of the company will vest with SAIL. It is further asserted that the BIFR has also recommended waiver of damages levied for delayed payment of PF dues for the period 1997 to 2004. Damages under Section 14B in the present case have been levied for delayed remittances during the period April, 2001 to March, 2004.

¶53

In view of such recommendation, I am of the considered view that the petitioner Company shall make a representation highlighting its grievances before the Board enclosing a copy of this order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Company has already made a representation in terms of Section 32B enclosing the modified scheme as well as the BIFR

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 20988/2007

¶55

¶56

order. If that be so, the Central Board of Trustees shall dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner within a time frame after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶57

In view of the mandatory provisions contained in paragraph 32B of the scheme and the recommendations of the BIFR, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of waiver of damages as claimed by it. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner Company has not paid the interest levied on it under Section 7Q of the Act. If the amount has not been paid, the same shall be paid within two months from today. The impugned order under Ext.P7 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Board for reconsideration in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A copy of the judgment be sent to respondent No.2 at the cost of the petitioner. Requisites for the same shall be filed within three weeks from today.

¶58

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶59

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 20988/2007

¶61

¶62

B.P. RAY, J.

¶63

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶64

W.P.(C) No. 20988/2007

¶65

¶66

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2011.

¶67

JUDGMENT

M/S. Steel Complex Ltd. v. the Assistant Provident Fund Commnr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Steel Complex Ltd. v. the Assistant Provident Fund Commnr.

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

K.P.Mrinalini Vs Government of Kerala

V.v.Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

K.Ali Akbar Vs Kerala Water Authority

Sealord Hotel Pvt.Limited Vs Indian Performing Right Society Ltd.

M/S.Steel Complex Limited Vs the Regional Provident Commissioner, Kzd

M/S.Steel Complex Ltd., Post Box No. 42 Vs the Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner