Disposed

Mohamed Ashik, v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC10 Apr 2023WP(C)/7770/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a show-cause notice for EPF arrears, claiming non-service of prior Section 7A order. Court held statutory remedy must be invoked first, permitted petitioner to file appeal while keeping proceedings abeyance for one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file appeal against Ext.R1 order; proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 kept in abeyance for one month.

Mohamed Ashik, Vs the Regional Provident Fund… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7770 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMED ASHIK,

¶8

PUZHANGARAILLATH HOUSE,CHALINGAD POST,KAIPAMANGALAM,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680681

¶9

BY ADV K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN – 682017

¶12

2THE REGIONAL P F COMMISSIONER -II & RECOVERY OFFICER,
BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR,
KOCHI, PIN - 682017

¶13

BY ADVS.
S.PRASANTH

¶14

V.JOHN MANI SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 7770 OF 2023 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 10 th day of April, 2023

¶19

The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a Partnership

¶20

firm which was engaged in the business of textiles. The firm is not doing any business since 2019. This writ petition is filed with respect to Ext.P6 show cause notice issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization, requiring him to show cause as to why proceedings for arrest and detention of the petitioner shall not be ordered for realising the amounts determined by the 2 nd respondent, towards the arrears of the contribution payable under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.

¶21

2 . One of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the order passed under Section 7 A

¶22

of the Act was never served upon the petitioner, and

¶23

WP(C) NO. 7770 OF 2023 3

¶24

therefore, they could not avail the statutory remedy of filing the appeal. The show cause notice was issued without serving the said order upon him.

¶25

3 . In response to the averments contained in the writ

¶26

petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is mentioned that the order under Section 7A has already been passed and forwarded to the petitioner as early as on 06.07.2020. Ext.R1 is the order passed, and Ext.Ext.R1(a) is the acknowledgement card received by the respondent.

¶27

4 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the establishment was closed and he never received the said order.

¶28

5 . After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, as Ext.P6 notice was issued based on the order issued by the authority concerned under Section 7A of the Act unless the said order is challenged by invoking

¶29

WP(C) NO. 7770 OF 2023 4

¶30

the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, the prayer sought by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be considered.

¶31

The learned standing counsel submitted that an appeal could be submitted based on the copy produced along with the counter affidavit produced by the respondent. In such circumstances, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to file an appeal against Ext.R1 order by producing the copy produced by the learned standing counsel for the respondent along with the counter affidavit.

¶32

However, the learned standing counsel further pointed out that the question of delay in filing the appeal, is also a matter which has to be taken into consideration, while admitting the appeal by the appellate authority. However, it is a fact that the limited prayer now sought by the petitioner is for an opportunity to invoke the statutory

¶33

WP(C) NO. 7770 OF 2023 5

¶34

remedy and this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext.R1 order and the question of delay, if any, in filing the appeal can be considered by the appellate authority. To enable the petitioner to invoke the said remedy, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE

¶37

mtk

¶38

WP(C) NO. 7770 OF 2023 6

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7770/2023

¶40

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶41

`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 01.05.2014`	`DEED OF PAR`	`TNERSHIP`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `PARTNERSHIP DATED 02.1`	`RECONSTITUTED` `1.2018`	`DEED OF`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF T` `16.06.2017`	`HE INTIMATIO`	`N DATED`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE`	`PAYMENT CONF`	`IRMATION`
	`RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF`	`JUNE, 2019,`	`WITH 15`
	`EMPLOYEE MEMBERS ON` `PETITIONER UNDER THE S`	`THE ROLLS` `CHEME`	`OF THE`
`ExhibitP5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF`	`THE CERTIFIC`	`ATE ON`
	`CANCELLATION OF THE`	`REGISTRATION`	`, UNDER`
	`THE` `KERALA` `SHOPS`	`AND` `CO`	`MMERCIAL`
	`ESTABLISHMENTS ACT,` `SILKS AT NORTH PARUR`	`1960, OF THE`	`LAMIYA`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `KR/KC/1606915/RECOVERY` `08.02.2023`	`SHOW CAUSE NO` `/2022-23`	`TICE NO.` `DATED`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit.R.1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`7A PROCEEDI`	`NGS AND`
	`ORDER UNDER THE ACT` `RESPONDENT TO THE PETI`	`ISSUED BY` `TIONER`	`THE 1ST`
`Exhibit.R.1(a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `RECEIVED BY THE RESPON`	`ACKNOWLEDME` `DENT`	`NT CARD`

Mohamed Ashik, v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Ashik, v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Muhammed Ashik Vs State of Kerala

Xavier Paul Vs the Excise Commissioner

Abdul Rafeeque C.K Vs Regional Transport Authority

Ayyappan Vs Shanti

Vivin Vincent Vs M/S Auto Bhan Trucking Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Jincy John, Vs Union of India