Allowed

M/S. A.P.R.M. Central School v. 1. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization

Kerala HC1 Mar 2023WP(C)/5710/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued a writ of mandamus to an EPF establishment aggrieved by a recovery order. The court directed the Industrial Tribunal to dispose of a pending appeal and stay petition within four months, with immediate stay on coercive proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the pending appeal and stay petition within four months, and coercive proceedings are deferred pending the stay petition's disposal.

M/S. A.P.R.M. Central School Vs 1. the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 1STDAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 5710 OF 2023

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

M/S. A.P.R.M. CENTRAL SCHOOL
CHITHARA, KOLLAM, PIN 691559, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
ABDUL SALAM. M., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MYTHEEN BAVA
RAWTHER, APRM CENTRAL SCHOOL ,CHITHARA ,KOLLAM,
PIN - 691559.

¶5

BY ADV AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING,
CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001.

¶8

2THE RECOVERY OFFICER
REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001.

¶9

3THE PRESIDING OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, 38/377 A-2,
KARITHALA LANE KARSHAKA ROAD COCHIN, PIN - 682016.
BY ADVS.
PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHEER
AKASH S.(K/980/2008)
GIRISH KUMAR M S(K/001593/2018)
V.S.VARALEKSHMI(K/000910/2019)
DEVIKA JAYARAJ(K/003117/2022)

¶10

SRI.MANU S, DSGI

¶11

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR
ADMISSIONON01.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 5710 OF 2023

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner is M/s A.P.R.M. Central School, Chithara, an

¶16

establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the schemes framed there under. A proceeding under Section 7A of the EPF Act 1952 was initiated against the petitioner leading to the passing of Ext.P1 order. The petitioner has been saddled with a liability of Rs.20,41,330/-.

¶17

Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred an application for review under Section 7B, which stands dismissed by Ext.P2 order. Challenging the same, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the 3^rd respondent along with an application for stay on 04.09.2022.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is that as the post of the Presiding Officer is lying vacant, the appeal, as well as the application for stay, has not been taken up for consideration. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶19

i) To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all the coercive steps against the petitioner institution for recovery of

¶20

WP(C) NO. 5710 OF 2023

¶21

¶22

amounts covered in Exhibit P1 order till the consideration and disposal of the stay petition in EPF Appeal 123/2022 pending before the 3^rd respondent.

¶23

Heard, Sri. Ajayakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

Sri. V.S. Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the EPF submitted that the petitioner has admitted that certain amounts are due.

¶25

I have considered submissions advanced.

¶26

I find that challenging the proceedings initiated by the

¶27

respondents, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal on 04.09.2022. I am of the view, until the stay petition is heard and disposed of, coercive proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P3 can be deferred.

¶28

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered and the following directions are issued.

¶29

a) There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to expeditiously consider Ext.P4 appeal and the stay petition preferred by the petitioner and pass orders, as expeditiously, as possible, in any event, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

WP(C) NO. 5710 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

b) Until orders are passed on the stay petition preferred by the petitioner, any coercive proceedings to recover the amount covered

¶33

under Ext.P1 order shall stand deferred.

¶34

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶37

Dxy

¶38

WP(C) NO. 5710 OF 20235

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5710/2023

¶40

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ORDER NO:
KRLM/16202/ECOURT NO.74/2021/ENF1(4)/AREA
5/2021,DATED 31-01-2022 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.

¶42

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KR/KLM/ 16202/ENF
1(4)/ AREA 5/2020-21 DATED 07-07-2022.

¶43

Exhibit P3THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 07-04-2022 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER.

¶44

Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APPEAL
MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE STAY PETITION IN
EPF APPEAL 123/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

M/S. A.P.R.M. Central School v. 1. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. A.P.R.M. Central School v. 1. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 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

Georgekutty Vs James P.A

Sunil Vs Vidyasagar (Owner)

Femina Siyad Vs the Secretary

Saran.C.R Vs Rani Chandrasekharan

Aseem. J.S Vs Regional Transport Authority

Sabir M.A. Vs the Secretary