Remanded

Jamaludheen Farooque v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Kerala HC10 Dec 2018WP(C)/36767/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the impugned show cause notice violated the principles of natural justice. The court set it aside and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying the agreed amounts within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The show cause notice (Ext.P1) was set aside and the matter remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration subject to payment.

Jamaludheen Farooque Vs Employees Provident… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 36767 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JAMALUDHEEN FAROOQUE AGED 49 YEARS THARAVATHA HOUSE, FEROKE COLLEGE P.O, KOZHIKODE-673632.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.NAVOD PRASANNAN PATTALI SRI.K.V.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP), BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN, P.B.NO.1016, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶12

2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, JOURNALIST COLONY, CHAMMANY ROAD, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM-682017.

¶13

3 RECOVERY OFFICER BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, JOURNALIST COLONY, CHAMMANY ROAD, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM-682017.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 36767/2018

¶18

-2-

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner, a Director, received the Ext.P1 show cause

¶21

notice. It was in the wake of the order under Section 14B of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act), said to have been passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization. The petitioner filed this writ petition assailing the Ext.P1 order on the grounds that the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice.

¶22

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the Standing Counsel contends that if the petitioner pays substantial amount, the Organization will reconsider the petitioner's plea, after providing him an opportunity of hearing.

¶23

In response, the petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner will pay the entire amount under the Section 7Q of the Act—Rs.2,00,191/-—and pay Rs.1 lakh out of Rs.4,17,065/-, charged under the Section 14B of the Act.

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 36767/2018

¶25

-3-

¶26

4. For this proposal the learned Standing Counsel agrees.

¶27

Under these circumstances, I hold that the Ext.P1 cannot be sustained, as it violates the principles of natural justice. sO, I set it aside. Consequently, I remand the matter for the second respondent's fresh consideration subject to the petitioner's paying the amounts agreed to above in three weeks from today.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶30

jjj

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.KR/KC/17662/RECOVERY/2018-19 DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 OF M/S INDIA VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 OF M/S INDIA VISION SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED.

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 36767/2018

¶35

-4-

¶36

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶37

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.11.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Jamaludheen Farooque v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamaludheen Farooque v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

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

Benny P.P. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

State Bank Institute of Learning Vs the Tahsildar, Kochi

Jessy Roy Vs Union of India

Varghese Oommen Vs the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Pradeepkumar Vs District Labour Officer, Kollam

Jamaludheen Farooque Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation