Dismissed

Changanacherry Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society LTD.NO.K/364 v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC4 Jan 2021WP(C)/29078/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an EPF inspection report. Court directed respondent authority to consider petitioner objections and conduct enquiry under Section 7-A of EPF Act within three months, deferring all further action based on the report.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider petitioner's objections and conduct enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act within three months; all further action pursuant to inspection report deferred.

Changanacherry Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

CHANGANACHERRY CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.NO.K/364, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ADITYA SABARI TOWER, POST OFFICE ROAD, THIRUNAKARA, KOTTAYAM - 1.

¶11

2 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUNAKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶12

SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP-SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 4th day of January 2021

¶18

The Changanacherry Co-operative Rubber Marketing Society Limited has approached this Court impugning Ext.P6 Inspection Report settled by the Enforcement Officer of the Provident Fund Organisation, Kottayam and they allege that the contents thereof and the demand made therein are both untenable and without basis.

¶19

Sri.Mathew Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes several assertions and impels various contentions in opposition to Ext.P6, but primarily that the petitioner is employing only two persons at the moment. Sri.Mathew Sebastian, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside.

¶20

In response, the learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisaton, Sri.Joy Thattil Itoop, submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely, since they can always file their objections to Ext.P6, which will then be considered by the competent Authority of the Organisation, leading to an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

¶23

1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Sri.Joy Thattil Itoop, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed and that the petitioner be either directed to pay the amounts as per Ext.P6 or to file their objections to it, if they are so interested.

¶24

On hearing Sri.Joy Thattil Itoop as above, Sri.Mathew Sebastian submitted that his client has already preferred Ext.P7 objections to Ext.P6 Inspection Report and thus prayed that this Court direct the competent Authority to consider the same and conduct an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act, before taking any further action based on the said report.

¶25

Taking note of the afore submissions and in particular those made by Sri.Joy Thattil Itoop, that the petitioner's objection will be considered leading to an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act, I order this writ petition and direct the competent respondent to take up Ext.P7 objections of the petitioner and consider the same, after conducting the enquriy under Section 7-A of the Act as per law and after affording necessary opportunities to the petitioner, culminating in an appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

¶27

¶28

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all further action pursuant to Ext.P6 will stand deferred and will be taken forward only based on the conclusions in the enquiry to be conducted in terms of this judgment.

¶29

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Stu

¶32

WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDEN	THE T DA	INSPECTION REPORT OF THE TED 10/6/2019.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF 24/6/2019 SUB 2ND RESPONDEN	THE MITT T.	REPRESENTATION DATED ED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDEN	THE T DA	INSPECTION REPORT OF THE TED 8/7/2019.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF 19/7/2019 SUB 2ND RESPONDEN	THE MITT T.	REPRESENTATION DATED ED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF RESPONDENT DA	THE TED	REPORT OF THE 2ND 17/1/2020.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND OF THE 13/11/2020.	THE 2ND	INSPECTION REPORT AND RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF 2/12/2020 SUB 2ND RESPONDEN	THE MITT T.	REPRESENTATION DATED ED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE

Changanacherry Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society LTD.NO.K/364 v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Changanacherry Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society LTD.NO.K/364 v. Assistant 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

Girija P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Simi Ambily S. Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd.

Varijakshan C.T.R Vs Kerala Water Authority

Sivan.P.v Vs the Canara Bank

Suresh Kumar K.R. Vs the Authorized Officer

M.a.Titto Vs State of Kerala