Dismissed

Tom Thomas v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC27 Nov 2012WP(C)/5249/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand notice for Provident Fund arrears. The Court held that since an appeal regarding the liability was pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner should have obtained a stay there. Without such a stay, the petitioner could not stall recovery proceedings in this writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Recovery notice Ext.P7 is upheld and no direction is given to respondents to refrain from coercive steps.

Tom Thomas Vs Assistant Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/6TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5249 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

TOM THOMAS, MANAGER, EDEN PUBLIC SCHOOL, VAZHOOR EAST, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUZHY BUILDINGS, C.M.S COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 001.

¶11

2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUZHY BUILDINGS C.M.S COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001.

¶12

3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 5249 of 2012

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL COVERAGE NOTICE DATED 25.10.2002.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2003.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL ALONG WITH THE PETITION FOR STAY DATED 8.4.2003.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT W.P.(C)NO. 26955/2003 DATED 3.9.2003.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT W.A.NO. 140 OF 2004 DATED 22.1.2004.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2004.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.2012.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT.

¶18

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

VPV

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶23

W.P.(C).No.5249 Of 2012

¶24

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2012.

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 notice of demand and for a direction directing respondents 1 & 2 not to proceed with any coercive step till the disposal of Ext.P3 appeal by the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

Ext.P1 dated 25.10.2002 is the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kottayam, directing the petitioner to remit the arrears of Provident Fund for the period June, 1999 to October, 2002. On the basis of Ext.P1 order, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P2 proceedings holding that school has engaged 20 or more person on their roll during June, 1999 and directed coverage under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The 1^st respondent upheld the coverage made with effect from 1999. Ext.P2 proceedings dated 28.2.2003 was challenged by the petitioner before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Ext.P3 is the copy of the appeal

¶28

::2::

¶29

W.P.(C).No.5249 Of 2012

¶30

memorandum. It is submitted that Ext.P3 appeal and stay petition filed in the year 2003 were pending consideration without orders. The 2^nd respondent has issued a demand notice to the petitioner for recovery of demand of Rs.8,99,372/- pursuant to Ext.P2 order. Ext.P7 is the copy of the notice dated 25.1.2012. The writ petition is filed seeking to challenge Ext.P7 notice.

¶31

The liability to pay the arrears of provident fund is the subject matter of the appeal pending before the Tribunal. It is for the petitioner to move the Tribunal and obtain stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 & P2, if so advised. Without obtaining any stay in a 2003 matter, the petitioner wanted to stall the recovery proceedings in this writ petition. The petitioner will be able to resist the recovery proceedings only if the Tribunal grants stay of recovery. It is not known why the stay petition was not taken for consideration all these years. It is not explained also in this writ petition. It is for the petitioner to move the appropriate forum and obtain appropriate orders. Ext.P7 is a demand notice issued directing the petitioner to remit the provident fund arrears. The petitioner is not entitled to

¶32

::3::

¶33

W.P.(C).No.5249 Of 2012

¶34

challenge Ext.P7 demand notice in a writ petition. The petitioner has not produced orders passed in his favour either in the stay petition or in the appeal by the Tribunal. The recovery officer is entitled to proceed with the recovery proceedings for the amount due from the petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 recovery notice issued in the said facts and circumstances.

¶35

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed.

¶36

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶37

bkn/-

Tom Thomas v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tom Thomas 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

Reneesa Vs the Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Ramakrishnan M.S. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Joby Tharian Vs the District Labour Officer

S.K.Joseph Vs S.K.Ittoop and Others

Ramesh v. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Mohanan Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram