Kerala HC quashed PF proceedings initiated under Section 7A based on a complaint by a stranger, allowing authorities to conduct an independent enquiry before alleging default.
Impugned proceedings quashed with liberty to PF authorities to initiate fresh proceedings after conducting independent enquiry.
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 B.P.RAY
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/24TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 11716 of 2008 (T)
PETITIONER(S):
BABU OMMEN, PROPRIETOR ALPHONSA CASHEW INDUSTRIES, PUTHUR P.O. KOLLAM-691 507.
BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
2. N. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, SHYLUM, NO.30 ARADHANA NAGAR, ULIYAKKOVIL P.O., KOLLAM-19.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).11716/08-T
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
| EXT.P1:- | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.22.8.07 ISSUED BY R1 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR FOR A HEARING ON 12.9.07 |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2:- | TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 16.8.07 FILED BY R2 BEFORE R1 |
| EXT.P3:- | TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF R1 DT.12.9.07 |
| EXT.P4:- | TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT. 4.3.08 OF R1 |
| EXT.P5:- | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.13.3.08 ISSUED TO THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . |
| EXT.P6:- | TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF R1 DT. 19.3.08 |
| EXT.P7:- | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.15.9.07 SUBMITTED TO THE DGP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXT.P8:- | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 27.9.07 ISSUED TO THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. |
| EXT.P9:- | TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DT. 4.2.03 IN OP.2478/93 |
| EXT.P10:- | TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DT 6.6.03 IN OP.17054/ |
| EXT.P11:- | TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DT .25.10.07 IN WPC.28677/07 |
| EXT.P12:- | TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING LIST OF CASES PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT IN WHICH R2 IS INVOLVED. |
| EXT.P13:- | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 22.4.08 ISSUED BY R1. |
| EXT.P14:- | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.1.5.08 ISSUED BY R1. |
| EXT.P15:- | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.7.5.08 ISSUED BY R1. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
EXT.R2(A):TRUE COPY OF NOTICE.
OKB
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
B.P. RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 11716 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2013.
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of cashew processing and owns a factory at Kadambanad apart from other factories in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The petitioner's establishment is covered under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and has been complying with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the first respondent in initiating proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 on the basis of Ext.P2 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent.
W.P.(C) No. 11716 of 2008
: 2 :
Enforcement Officer. Therefore, the impugned proceedings is
vitiated on that score alone.
7A. Determination of moneys due from employers . (1) The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, by order,-
and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary.
(2) The officer conducting the inquiry under sub-section (1) shall, for the purpose of such inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 pf 1908), for trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-
c) Receiving evidence on affidavit.
d) Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses.
and any such inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of Section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
fails to remit the amount in respect of an employee, then the
provident fund authorities are entitled to issue notice in respect of the employees.
W.P.(C) No. 11716 of 2008
: 3 :
Food Corporation of India v. P.F. Commissioner & others. The ratio of the said decision shall also be taken into consideration while deciding the issue.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C) No. 11716 of 2008 : 4 :
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice issued under Section 7A of the EPF Act based on a complaint by a stranger is maintainable without independent enquiry?
Whether the subjective satisfaction of the authority issuing the notice is vitiated for non-application of mind?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Food Corporation of IndiaReferred¶47
Food Corporation of India v. P.F. Commissioner & others, 1994(III) LLJ (Suppl) 1136
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Babu Ommen
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Kerala
N. Ramankutty Nair
B.P. Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
