Dismissed

M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC16 Nov 2011WP(C)/21312/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an EPF Tribunal order rejecting a review application for non-payment of provident fund contributions, finding no patent illegality. The Court granted conditional permission to pay dues in installments while allowing challenge to excluded employee liability for future periods.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to pay dues in three equal monthly installments; liberty confirmed to convince authority regarding exclusion of employees from the Act for periods not cover

M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers Vs Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 21312 of 2010(L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

M/S.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS, GOLD HYPER MARKET, HEERA PLAZA, MAIN ROAD, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SUNNY JACOB AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.MATHEW CHACKO, KALLATHIL HOUSE, VEROOR P.O., CHANGANASSERI, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONR, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, KERALA,KOLLAM SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, MANNANIYA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM - 691001.

¶13

ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN FOR R1

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.11.2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 21312 of 2010(L)

¶16

APPENDIX:

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.KR/16952/Enf.I(1)/2008 DATED 21.08.2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 06/09/2007 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.KR/KLM/16952/Enf.I(1)/2008 DATED 01/05/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 13/06/2008.
EXT.P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2010 IN ATA 553(7)/2008 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVDENT FUNDS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶22

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 21312 OF 2010

¶24

Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal on an appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order of the respondent, issued on a petition filed under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act. The establishment of the petitioner is covered under the Act. Pursuant to an enquiry conducted under Section 7A, an order determining contributions payable by the petitioner was issued on 6.09.2007. The petitioner preferred a review petition against that order under Section 7B of the Act. Subsequently, he approached this Court seeking direction for consideration of the review petition. On the basis of directions issued by this Court, the matter was considered by the respondent and Ext.P2 order was

¶27

W.P.C. No. 21312 OF 2010 -2-

¶28

issued. All the registers and other documents produced by the petitioner to substantiate his contentions in the review petition were perused by the respondent and it was observed that such documents does not tally with the factual aspects reported by the Enforcing Officer on the basis of inspection conducted. Finding that the records produced could not be accepted for exonerating the liability of the petitioner, the review petition was rejected.

¶29

In the appeal filed before the Tribunal it was mainly contended that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to substantiate his case in the proceedings under Section 7B. The Tribunal found that there was no challenge against applicability of provisions of Act with respect to the establishment of the petitioner. But it is found that the only contention is regarding certain employees who need be excluded because they are drawing salary beyond the limits prescribed. But the appellate tribunal found that, in spite of

¶30

W.P.C. No. 21312 OF 2010 -3-

¶31

such contentions the petitioner had produced no documents to support the same. It is also observed that the salary register and ledger which were maintained by the petitioner does not tally. The Tribunal also found that, in fact the review petition itself was not maintainable before the respondent since there existed no irregularity in the proceedings such as violation of principles of natural justice or any mistake committed on the basis of erroneous assumption of facts which will lead in miscarriage of justice.

¶32

In the jurisdiction vested on this Court under Article 226 it cannot be possible to have a re-appreciation of the evidence on record or an evaluation of correctness of factual aspects in dispute. A judicial review is possible only to the extent of any patent illegality or irregularity committed by the appellate authority. I do not find any such material illegality or irregularity warranting interference with the order passed by the appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the

¶33

W.P.C. No. 21312 OF 2010 -4-

¶34

writ petition deserve no merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Having revealed the decision of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to permit payment of the balance amount due under Ext.P1 in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. He also made a further appeal to clarify that Ext.P1 order confirmed through Ext.P2 will not stand in the way of the petitioner establishing before the appropriate authority that any number of employees are excluded from the purview of Act for the subsequent periods than covered by Ext.P1.

¶36

I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay the balance amount due under Ext.P1 in three equal monthly installments, falling due on or before 30.11.2011 and on or before last day of two succeeding months. Hence order so. It is also made clear that, notwithstanding Ext.P1 order confirmed through

¶37

W.P.C. No. 21312 OF 2010 -5-

¶38

Ext.P2, the petitioner will be at liberty to convince the authority that any number of employees are liable to be excluded from the purview of the Act, with respect to any further period other than covered under Ext.P1.

¶39

C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE.

¶40

Kp/-

M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

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

P.C.Shibu Vs K.Somarajan

T.P.John Vs Special Officer

Jija P.T Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Rajan and Others Vs the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat & Ors.

P.Bindu Vs K.S.E.B.

K.Sudhakaran Vs Director, Kerala Local Fund Audit and