Disposed

M/s.Emerald Engineering Unit 2 v. The Regional Provident Fund

Madras HC8 Mar 2016WP/14149/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition challenging damages levied under Section 14B of the EPF Act. Having complied with a conditional order to deposit 50%, the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Central Board under para 32B of the EPF Scheme, 1952.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file appropriate application/appeal before the Central Board under para 32B of EPF Scheme, 1952 within six weeks.

M/s.Emerald Engineering Unit 2 Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:08.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

WP.No.14149 of 2015

¶6

and MP.No.01of 2015

¶7

M/s. Emerald Engineering Unit 2 represented by its Deputy Managing Director P.Dhanraj, Survey No.128A, Kelambakkam - Vandalur Main Road Mambakkam Village, Chennai - 48. .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II Employees' Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour), Government of India Regional Office, No.3, Rajaji Salai, Tambaram, Chennai -600 045 .. Respondents

¶10

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent herein in Proceedings No.TR/RO/TAM/60662/ Gr.58/PDC/2015 dated 22.4.2015 quash the same.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner Engineering Unit is aggrieved by the order dated 22.4.2015 passed by the respondent levying damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. The petitioner Unit would state that all their units have been merged as single Unit as M/s. Diamond Engineering Chennai (P) Ltd, and they had closed down the operations of the Sholinganallur Units of M/s.Diamond Engineering and Topaz Engineering due to the development of Rajiv Gandhi Salai and hence they were unable to provide employment for the entire work force. The petitioner Unit would further state that they had earlier received "Best Exporter" Award and they were paying the statutory charges regularly. The

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

petitioner would also state that due to the financial crisis faced by them, they have become sick.

¶15

At the time when the writ petition was entertained, the petitioner was directed to remit 50% of the amount demanded and the same has been complied with.

¶16

Now the question would be as to whether the petitioner should be permitted to adjudicate the correctness of the impugned proceedings by way of this writ petition or is there any other remedy available to the petitioner under the Act or the Scheme.

¶17

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 provides for alternative remedy in terms of para 32B and in cases, where BIFR in its Scheme has recorded certain requests and recommended waiver, the authority, namely, the Central Board may consider waiver. However, in other cases, the reduction of damages may be allowed up to 50%.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has become sick, they have not approached BIFR for declaring them as sick industry. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to approach the Central Board under Para 32B of EPF Scheme, 1952.

¶19

In the light of the fact that the petitioner has already complied with the conditional order passed by this Court by depositing 50% of the dues levied by the respondent as damages, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to move the Central Board under Para 32B of EPF Scheme, 1952.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application / appeal before the Central Board under para 32 B of EPF Scheme, 1952, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall produce the proof of such appeal/application being filed before the Board to the respondent, within one week thereafter. If the petitioner produces such proof, the respondent shall not proceed further with the impugned proceedings and should await the decision of the Central Board, failing which the respondent shall proceed further in terms of the impugned order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Asst.Registrar (CS V )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

¶28

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II Employees' Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour), Government of India Regional Office, No.3, Rajaji Salai, Tambaram, Chennai -600 045

¶29

1 cc to Mr.J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, Advocate, Sr. 14726 1 cc to Mr.J. Pothiraj, Advocate, Sr. 14922

¶30

WP.No.14149 of 2015
SKV (CO)
kk 22/3

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Emerald Engineering Unit 2 v. The Regional Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Emerald Engineering Unit 2 v. The Regional Provident Fund

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

S.Krishnasamy Vs Hemanath

Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Appellate Authority

Y.J.Bakir Vs Chennai Metropolitan

Mrs.K.Padmapriya Vs The Executive Engineer

I.Ali Mohammed Yunus Vs The Assistant Executive

G.Thangarajan Vs The Chairman