Disposed

Dinesh Chandran v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC13 Feb 2020WP(C)/4050/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the proprietor challenged coercive proceedings for belated PF remittances after realizing his appeal was dismissed by default upon receiving a demand notice. The High Court directed the petitioner to apply before the Appellate Tribunal for restoration under Rule 15 of the 1997 Procedure Rules and stayed coercive proceedings pending a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to seek restoration of appeal before Appellate Tribunal; coercive proceedings stayed pending orders.

Dinesh Chandran Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner — Kerala HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4050 OF 2020(E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DINESH CHANDRAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O.A.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S. CHANDRA CHASHEW FACTORY, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O., KOLLAM-691 014

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.ARUN SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PONNAMMA CHAMBERS, PARAMSEWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM-691 001

¶11

2 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PONNAMMA CHAMBERS, PARAMESWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM-691 001

¶12

3 RECOVERY OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, MANNINIYA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM,KOLLAM-691 001

¶13

SRI. PIRAPPANCODE. V.S SUDHEER SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.4050 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

M/s. Chandra Cashew Company is an establishment covered under

¶19

the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. For belated remittances, proceedings were initiated against the said establishment under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act. The petitioner herein is the proprietor of the said concern. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal, which was at New Delhi. The case was later made over to the Appellate Tribunal at Banglore from where it was made over to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. The Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to appear on 30.12.2019. According to the petitioner, the entire records were with the counsel at New Delhi and he was expecting his counsel to appear. On 21.1.2020, a notice of demand was issued to the petitioner which was received by him on 23.1.2020. It was only then that he realized that his appeal was dismissed for default. He has now approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 order and also for a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal and to keep coercive proceedings in abeyance till then.

¶20

Heard Sri.R.Arun, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶21

WP(C).No.4050 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

Rule 15 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 enables the petitioner herein to prefer an application within 30 days from the date of dismissal and satisfy the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal for default, only when notice of demand was served on him. It is for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal and seek restoration.

¶25

In that view of the matter, I dispose of this Writ Petition directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal and seek restoration of the appeal in terms of the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. If an application is filed, within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously, at any rate, within a further period of one month from the date of filing of the application.

¶26

Till orders are passed, coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

IAP

¶31

WP(C).No.4050 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.04.2010

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 8B OF THE EPF ACT DATED 01.04.2011

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 20.01.2011

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 30.12.2019 IN APPEAL NO.548/2019

¶40

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.01.2020

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶42

NIL

Dinesh Chandran v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandran v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

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

M/S.Sreenidhi Towers Private Limited Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Santhosh K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Suresh U.M.. Vs the District Executive Officer

Muhammed Asarudheen Vs State of Kerala

V.B.Asokan Vs Union of India

Visobh K.v., Vs State of Kerala