Dismissed

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. the Talayar Tea Comapny Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Mar 2015WP(C)/10795/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner challenging an Appellate Tribunal order. The Court held that the claim of lack of notice was untenable and dismissed the petition due to an inordinate delay of seven years in seeking relief.

What did the court decide?

No indulgence shown; writ petition dismissed with no costs.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/27TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 10795 of 2009 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BUILDING KOTTAYAM

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

TALAYAR TEA COMPANY LTD 10, DAMU NAGAR, PULIAKULAM TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY

¶11

THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SKYLARK BUILDING, BEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 10795 of 2009 (T)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KR/KTM/51/P.D/ENF.I(6)/2001/16985 DATED 26.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER

¶17

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.01.2002 IN ATA 49(7)/2002

¶18

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN APPEAL ATA 49(7)/2002 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶19

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN ANSWER TO THE CONTENTION IN THE APPEAL ATA 49(7)/2002 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶20

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 13.02.2002

¶21

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.12662 OF 2002 DT 10.05.2002 OF THIS HON BLE COURT

¶22

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 5.9.2005 FROM THE APPELLATE TRBUNAL

¶23

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.11.2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONERS OFFICE TO THE ADVOCATE

¶24

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 9.11.2005 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE REGISTRAR OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WITH COPY TO THE PETITIONER

¶25

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 11.7.2002 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ATA 49(7)/ 2002

¶26

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KR/KTM/51/ENF. I(7)/ 05/5361 DATED 2.12.2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADVOCATE FOR THE EPF ORGANISATION

¶27

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO KR/KTM/51/ENF.I(7)/06/1510 DATED 3.05.2006 SENT TO THE LAWYER

¶28

EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO KR/KTM/51/ENF.I(4)/PD/2007/21137 DATED 22.03.2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶29

EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO KR/KTM/51/PD/ENF.I(3)/2007/12964 DATED 13.12.2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.

¶30

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS; NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶35

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.10795 of 2009

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2015

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

¶40

the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order of the Appellate Tribunal which according to the petitioner has been passed without notice. This Court is not inclined to prima facie accept that contention, since a reading of the order would indicate that the respondent therein the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kottayam had filed their objections. It was also noticed by the Tribunal that the Organisation has in its reply merely stated that the order levying damages were issued from time to time. Neither the specifics have been given nor were such orders filed.

¶41

In any event, the impugned order in the

¶42

WPC.No.10795/2009

¶43

: 2 :

¶44

appeal was for the period 3/94 to 10/96 when for delay in remittance of contributions under Section 14B, damages was imposed. The averments in the writ petition clearly indicate that the respondent organisation had received notice of the appeal filed and the respondent Organisation had also engaged its Standing Counsel with respect to the above matter .

¶45

The specific contention of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation is that by Ext.P7 notice in ATA 49(7)/02, which is the appeal filed by the assessee against Ext.P1 order, hearing was fixed on 11.11.2004 and the matter was taken up with the Standing Counsel. The Standing Counsel had informed the petitioner herein, by Ext.P8, that already a counter affidavit was placed on record on 19.02.2002. However, later, the respondent organisation was informed that Ext.P10 order was passed on 11.11.2002. The specific contention raised

¶46

WPC.No.10795/2009

¶47

: 3 :

¶48

is that RPFC, the petitioner herein did not have notice of the proceedings.

¶49

Definitely a counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein, through the Standing Counsel on 19.02.2002, which is evidenced by Ext.P8. The fact that the subsequent notice was issued by Ext.P7 in an appeal which was disposed of on, 2002, does not at all commend interference in Ext.P10. In fact on notice being issued to the assessee by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, the assessee had replied by Ext.P9 clarifying that the matter was disposed of as early as on 11.07.2002. Hence Ext.P7 can only be said to be an error committed by the Registry of the Appellate Tribunal.

¶50

Coming to the disposal as of 2002 it is evident that even before the disposal, the matter was entrusted by the respondent Organisation to the Standing Counsel who appeared for the respondent

¶51

WPC.No.10795/2009

¶52

: 4 :

¶53

organisation before the Tribunal and through whom the counter affidavit was also filed. The communication issued by the next incumbent Standing Counsel of the respondent Organisation at Ext.P8 indicates that the counter affidavit was filed by the earlier Standing Counsel. Hence it cannot be said that at every point notice has to be issued to the respondent organisation, especially when the organisation is represented by a Standing Counsel before the Appellate Tribunal. It is also to be noticed that the Tribunal has its regular sitting at New Delhi and there would definitely be a diary maintained showing the posting dates of the cases on each date.

¶54

Further on the disposal of the matter, the order would definitely have been served on the Organisation which should have taken up the remedy against such order at the appropriate time. Even Ext.P7 notice is dated 05.09.2005. The present writ

¶55

WPC.No.10795/2009

¶56

: 5 :

¶57

petition was filed on 25.02.2009. The notice issued by Ext.P7 was for appearance on 11.11.2005 and the Standing Counsel also has indicated the same. Hence at least on 11.11.2005, definitely the respondent Organisation would have come to know of the disposal of the appeal in the year 2002. When it came to the notice of the respondent that the matter was disposed in the year 2002; at least in the year 2005, immediately a writ petition should have been filed.

¶58

The contention of the Organisation is that

¶59

it is taken up before the Registry of the EPF appellate Tribunal. When an order is issued by the Appellate Tribunal, the Registry has absolutely nothing to do in the matter and it was incumbent upon the respondent Organisation to invoke immediately the remedy under Article 226. Having not done that and having waited for another four

¶60

WPC.No.10795/2009

¶61

: 6 :

¶62

years, to file the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that no indulgence can be shown to the respondent Organisation merely for the reason that it is an organisation under the Central Government. True the organisation protects the welfare of the workman and definitely has to be given a leeway but that cannot extend to condoning delay of almost seven years from the date of disposal in the year 2002. In such circumstance, there is no reason why any interference has to be caused.

¶63

Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶64

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶65

jma

¶66

//true copy//

¶67

P.A to Judge

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. the Talayar Tea Comapny Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. the Talayar Tea Comapny Ltd.

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

Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Vs Vimala C.

Vimala Vs the Secretary

Amal Joy Abraham Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University

Rajan P Vs Mohanan

V.a.Shaju Vs State of Kerala

The Gen. Secretary, Pathanamthitta Jilla Vs Labour Court, Kollam