Disposed

Dr.K.S.Subhash, v. Union of India

Kerala HC18 Feb 2020WP(C)/863/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to lift an attachment on his property after remitting EPF dues and filing a representation regarding pending damages and interest. Court directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to dispose of the representation expeditely.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it within three weeks to enable lifting of property attachment.

Dr.K.S.Subhash, Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 29TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.863 OF 2020(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.K.S.SUBHASH, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUSHEELAN, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.KONCHERRY COIR FACTORY AND M/S.IMPERIAL COIR YARN TRADING COMPANY, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, MAYITHARA MARKET POST, CHERTHALA, ALEPPEY DISTRICT, PIN - 688 539. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.MALLENATHAN.M. SRI.AVINASH K.KRISHNAN SMT.K.SINDHU ELIAS SMT.KRISHNA SANTHOSH SMT.HARITHA JAYAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE 36/685A, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN - 682 017. 3 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, JH AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE 36/685A, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN - 682 017.

¶10

WP(C).No.863 OF 2020(G)

¶11

¶12

R1 BY SRI.M.A.VINOD, CGC R2-3 BY SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL, SC, EPFO

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.863 OF 2020(G)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner herein states that he is the Managing Partner of Koncherry Coir Factories and Imperial Coir and Trading Company having its headquarters at Cherthala in the State of Kerala. Those are establishments covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“the Act” for short) and the sundry schemes framed thereunder. The business run by the petitioner ran into rough weather, which prevented him from making remittances due from his above concerns with the Provident Fund Organization. Proceedings under Section 7A of the Act happened to be initiated and the same was challenged before this Court. By judgment dated 8.9.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 22085 of 2016, the writ petition was closed taking note of certain developments which took place in the interregnum. The petitioner remitted a total sum of Rs.17,36,813/-, with the organization on 26.11.2019 with a view to clear off the dues. Despite the same, the attachment in respect of an item of property having an extent of 15.561 cents situated at Mannancherry village owned by the petitioner, has not been lifted by the respondents . Seeking to lift the attachment, the

¶18

WP(C).No.863 OF 2020(G)

¶19

¶20

petitioner has approached the 2 nd respondent by filing Ext.P7 representation. Contending that the respondent has failed to respond to the representation or lift the attachment, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

2 . Heard Sri. K.C.Eldho, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sajeev Kumar Gopal, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The learned Standing counsel submitted that the dues under Section 7A was paid only on 26.11.2019 though the writ petition was closed in the year 2016. Admittedly, the payments due to the EPF Organization were remitted belatedly. He would contend that sums are due towards damages and interest under section 14B and 7Q of the Act and if the same is cleared as and when the notice is received the attachment would be lifted. It is submitted that the damages and interest are being tabulated and delay occurred only due to the belated remittances made by the petitioner. He would submit that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be disposed of expeditiously and he would be made known about the quantum of dues.

¶23

I have considered the submissions. From the submissions advanced before this Court it appears that some amounts are due from

¶24

WP(C).No.863 OF 2020(G)

¶25

¶26

the petitioner towards damages under Section 14B and interest under section 7Q of the Act. Since the petitioner is planning to dispose of the property to clear his dues to various creditors and the respondents, it is only just and proper that the petitioner is intimated about his exact dues to the organization. I therefore direct the 2^nd respondent to take up Exhibit P7 representation and dispose of the same expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

This Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No.863 OF 2020(G)

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.22085 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.918/2016 IN WP(C) 22085/2016 DATED 08/11/2016.
EXHIBIT	P4 NIL.
EXHIBIT	P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05/07/2016 REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT P3.
EXHIBIT	P4(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05/07/2016 REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT P3.
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA CERTIFYING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER OTS.
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE BANKER'S CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR A SUM OF RS.17,36,813/-.
EXHIBIT	P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/11/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

SR //True Copy// PA to Judge

Dr.K.S.Subhash, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.S.Subhash, v. Union of India

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

Omkary Venkidesh Vs State of Kerala

Sherif P. Vs State of Kerala

The Managing Director Vs the State of Kerala

National Commercial and General Workers Union Vs the Labour Commissioner

T.Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

K.K.Ibrahim, Vs M/S.Cochin Kaagzar Limited,(Ckl)