Allowed

M/S.Accentia Technologies Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissionr

Kerala HC7 Nov 2022WP(C)/3214/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an ex-parte dismissal of a provident fund appeal by the EPF Appellate Tribunal. The court directed the tribunal to restore the matter and hear the petitioner within five months after affording due opportunity of hearing to both parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned ex-parte order is set aside; the appeal is restored; the Tribunal is directed to hear the case on merits within five months after providing opportunity of hearing.

M/S.Accentia Technologies Ltd. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶4

WP(C) NO. 3214 OF 2011

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

M/S.ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
(FORMERLY M/S GOESOFT TECHNOOGIES (TRIVANDRUM),
LIMTED 233-235 NILA, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS, MANAGING
DIRECTOR PRADEEP V.S, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.VISWAMBHARAN.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONR
EFA ORGANISTION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI
BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶9

2THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI.
BY ADV SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

0
SMT.NITA.N.S, SC(EPF)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

-2-

¶14

W.P.(C). No. 3214 of 2011

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

W.P.(C) No. 3214 of 2011

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶20

“i) call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and set aside the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;

¶21

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing any order in ATA.No.568(7)/2010; and

¶22

iii) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case” (sic)

¶23

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order. Aggrieved by the assessment orders passed by the 1^st respondent under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act for the period 2006 to 2008 and 2009 to 2010, the petitioner preferred

¶24

appeals before the 2^nd respondent as ATA Nos. 640(7)/08 and 568(7)/2010. It is the case of the petitioner that both these

¶25

W.P.(C). No. 3214 of 2011

¶26

-3-

¶27

appeals were being regularly posted before the 2^nd respondent at Delhi and a counsel at Delhi was prosecuting both the appeals for the petitioner. When both these appeals were posted at the Camp Sitting of the 2^nd respondent at Thiruvananthapuram on 13.1.2011 there was some personal inconvenience to the counsel stationed at Delhi and filed Ext.P4 application for adjournment of the cases. While the earlier appeal, ATA.No.640(7)/2008 was adjourned, the other appeal, ATA.No.568(7)/2010 was not adjourned and dismissed by an exparte order, which is Ext.P5. It is the case of the petitioner that on enquiry with the office of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner's counsel at Delhi came to know that the office of the 2^nd respondent failed to note Ext.P4 request for adjournment in the case file of ATA.No.568(7)/10 and that the request was placed only in the case file of ATA.No.640(7)/08 and hence the 2^nd respondent was under the impression that there was no request for adjournment. According to the petitioner, there is no latches or negligence on

¶28

-4-

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 3214 of 2011

¶30

the part of the petitioner or its counsel. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 exparte order this writ petition is filed.

¶31

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing

¶32

Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶33

This Court perused Ext.P5 order. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would show that it is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has got a specific case that the counsel of the petitioner was not able to appear because of some personal inconvenience and application to that effect was also filed. I don’t want to make any observation about the same. Admittedly, Ext.P5 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think an opportunity can be given to the petitioner for contesting the appeal on merit.

¶34

-5-

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 3214 of 2011

¶36

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following

¶37

manner:

¶38

Ext.P5 order is set aside and ATA No.568(7)/2010 is restored.

¶39

The tribunal concerned is directed to consider ATA No.568(7)/2010, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 1^st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

das

-6-

W.P.(C). No. 3214 of 2011

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3214/2011

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATE 20.1.2009 IN
WP(C) NO.2078/2009 PASSED BY THIS
HON’BLE COURT
Exhibit P2COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.7.2010
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
NO.568(7)/2010 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, DATED 6.9.2010 WITH A
PETITION FOR WAIVER
Exhibit P4COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 6.1.2011
Exhibit P5COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2011 IN
ATA NO.568(7)/2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R-2(a)COPY OF THE DETAILED SPEAKING ORDER
DATED 20.7.2010
Exhibit R-2(b)COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER DATED NIL
Exhibit R-2(c) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.1.2011
Exhibit R-2(d)COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY DUES FOR THE
PERIOD 2-09 TO 2-10.

M/S.Accentia Technologies Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissionr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Accentia Technologies Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissionr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.K.Asokan Vs Chief Engineer and Another

C.a.Mathew Choorapuzha Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.

George Mathew Vs Kse Board

Jayesh C. Vs Manager, Edarikode Textiles

C.Jayesh Vs Kerala State Textiles Corporation

S.P.Multi Speciality Hospital Vs the Employees Provident Fund