The court disposed of a writ petition challenging demands for damages and interest under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act. Holding that an appeal remedy exists under Section 7-I, the court found no justification to interfere with the demand for damages.
The writ petition was disposed of without interference with the demand for damages.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934
WP(C).No. 6999 of 2011 (Y)
PETITIONER(S):
M/S.A.P.VARGHESE & SONS, ENGINEERING & TRANSPORTING CONTRACTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.ANTONY VARGHESE, S/O.A.P.VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANTHIKAD HOUSE, ELOOR SOUTH, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., KOCHI-683 501.
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
R1 BY ADVS. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE R2 BY ADVS. SRI. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA SRI.C.RASHEED, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
WP(C).No. 6999 of 2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE R1(a) : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALONG WITH DAMAGES STATEMENT DATED 30.11.2010.
ANNEXURE R1(b) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.03.2011.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
NS
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
W.P(C).No. 6999 of 2011
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2012 JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Exhibits P12, P13 and P13(A) demands made by the Provident Fund authorities in respect of the damages and interest under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Later on it seems that the interest portion had been paid and the demand under Section 7Q of the Act is satisfied, which is evident from Exhibit R1(b). The only question to be considered then is whether there is any violation of natural justice or illegality in demanding damages under Section 14B of the Act.
2
WP(C).6999/11
and the demand made in terms of Exhibit P13. In fact, Exhibit P13 (A) demand under Section 7Q of the Act has already been satisfied. Since the petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal, to challenge the demand under section 14B, I do not find any justification to interfere with the demand now made and it is not open for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with such demand.
3
WP(C).6999/11
showing the adjustments made in respect of the amounts collected.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
vgs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a demand for damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act when an appeal remedy is available under Section 7-I.
Whether there was a violation of natural justice or illegality in demanding damages for the delay in contribution remittance.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S.A.P.VARGHESE & SONS, ENGINEERING & TRANSPORTING CONTRACTORS
ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
UNION OF INDIA
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
