High Court of Kerala reduced the PF penalty imposed on a struggling employer from 100% to 30% and directed authorities to assess the balance amount within two weeks.
Penalty reduced to 30%; authorities directed to assess balance and intimate petitioner within two weeks.
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 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/17TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 18836 of 2005 (P)
PETITIONER:
AYSHA HOSIERY FACTORY PVT.LTD., POST PALAPPARAMBA, NIRMALAGIRI, KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS SRI.SANDEEP.E.
RESPONDENT(S):
R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. R BY SRI.R.SUDHIR, SC, P.F.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 18836 of 2005 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS.
| EXT.P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 18.10.2004 |
ORDER ISSUED |
NO.KR/KNR/173/ENF.1(01) 20021/2795 BY R2. |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE FILED BY THE PETI |
WRITTE TIONER |
N STATEMENT IN APPEAL NO.893(7)2004 BEFORE R2. |
| EXT.P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE 15.4.2005. |
ORDER | OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED |
| EXT.P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER FOR TH |
ANNUAL E YEAR |
REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF THE 2002-2003. |
| EXT.P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER FOR TH |
ANNUAL E YEAR |
REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF THE 2003-2004. |
RESPONDENTS' EXTS.
| EXT.R2(a) | TRUE COPY OF SHOW | CAUSE NOTICE. |
|---|---|---|
| EXT.R2(b) | TRUE COPY OF REVI | SED LEVY ORDER DATED 18.10.2004. |
lgk
//true copy//
PA TO JUDGE
B.P.RAY, J
WP(C)No.18836 of 2005 ......................................... Dated 6th February, 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:-
“a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the 1st respondent in appeal ATA No.893(7)/2004 evidenced by Ext.P3, and the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent evidenced by Ext.P1 and quash the same.
b) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to allow the appeal ATA No. 893(7)/2004 filed by the petitioner and quash the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by 2nd respondent evidenced by Ext.P1.
c) to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case”.
Wpc 18836/2005 2
Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Since the petitioner was running on heavy loss and facing heavy financial strain, there was some delay in payment of contributions in respect of employees for the period 5/2002 to 3/2004. After payment of P.F.Contribution for the said period, second respondent issued Ext.P1 order imposing damages of Rs.1,10,605/- on the petitioner in respect of the period from 5/2002 to 3/2004. Petitioner had filed appeal, ATA No.893(7)/2004 before the 1st respondent. None of the authorities have considered the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Wpc 18836/2005
3
this court on 24.6.2005. The balance amount shall be assessed and intimated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such a demand is made, petitioner shall pay the same without interest within one month thereafter.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE
lgk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether penalty amount under Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act should be reduced from 100% to 30%.
Whether the writ petition challenging the levy order and appeal dismissal should be allowed.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
AYSHA HOSIERY FACTORY PVT.LTD.
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
B.P.RAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
