Remanded

M/S Sujatha Jewellery, v. the Assistant Provident Fund

Madras HC23 Nov 2018WP(MD)/9380/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order for EPF contribution, the High Court held that although an alternative remedy existed, the petitioner's age and health justified remitting the case for de novo consideration pending a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition remanded to respondent for de novo consideration subject to petitioner depositing Rs. 1 lakh within four weeks.

M/S Sujatha Jewellery, Vs the Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 23.11.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD)No.9380 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014

¶3

M/s.Sujatha Jewellery 33, Big Street, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District through its Proprietor

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, No.18, Sri Complex, Madurai Road, Trichy – 8.

¶7

... Respondent

¶8

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the file of the respondent herein in No.D4/TN/TR/76348/SRO-TRY/ENF/2014 dated 07.05.2014 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to fix the date of hearing in relating to the petition dated 28.03.2014 filed by the petitioner under Sec 7A(4) of the EPF Act to set aside the exparte order dated 29.11.2012 and to provide opportunity to the petitioner and decide the matter on merits and to quash the cost imposed through the order in No. D4/TN/TR/76348/SRO/TRY/2012 dated 03.09.2012

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Karthi

¶10

ORDER

¶11

It is noticed from the records of the documents filed before this Court that the impugned order came to be passed in the absence of the petitioner, though several notices were issued to the petitioner.

¶12

2.The respondent has directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.3,82,128/- on account of the Employees Provident Fund/Insurance Fund Contribution etc.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is appealable before the Employees Provident Fund https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account the alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶14

¶15

4.It is noticed that the petitioner was 77 years at the time of filing this writ petition had certain health issues as averred in the affidavit and therefore, he could not effectively make representation before the respondent, who passed the impugned order.

¶16

5.Considering the overall circumstances, I am of the view, ends of justice would be met if the case is remitted back to the respondent for denovo consideration of the issue by the respondent subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent shall thereafter call upon the petitioner and pass a speaking order, within a period of four weeks.

¶17

6.This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶20

/True Copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶22

+1cc to P.Chandra Bose,Advocate Sr.No.97219 +1cc to Mr.V.S.Karthi, Advocate Sr.No.96674

¶23

ARUL

¶24

KM/BK/SAR1/18.12.2018/2P/3C

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.9380 of 2014 23.11.2018

¶26

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

M/S Sujatha Jewellery, v. the Assistant Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sujatha Jewellery, v. the Assistant 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

Mrs.P.Sarala Devi Vs the Special Commissioner &

R. Kumarasamy Vs Director of Rural Development

B. Sekar, Vs the Executive Officer

Valar Akilan, Vs the Director Central Board

K.Nagamani Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Balakrishnan, Vs the Regisitering Authority Cum