Dismissed

Sri Sapthagiri Transport, v. The Asst,. Provident Fund Commissioner

Madras HC5 Feb 2020WP/2128/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order requiring a 75% deposit for an appeal under the EPF Act. The Court found no reason to interfere, noting the deposit was a statutory requirement and the Tribunal had properly considered the petitioner's application.

What did the court decide?

No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Sri Sapthagiri Transport, Vs The Asst,. Provident Fund… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.NO.2128 OF 2020 AND W.M.P.NO.2487 OF 2020

¶6

Sri Sapthagiri Transport

¶7

rep. by its Proprietor Mr.T.E.Murali, no.9, Park road, Newry Towers, D.No.A603, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai - 600 101.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Sub Regional Office,Ambattur, R-40, A1, TNHB Shopping cum Office Complex, Thirumangalam, Muguappair Road, Muguappair East, Chennai - 600 037 ... Respondent

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Appellate Authority Under EPF Act at Chennai EPFA No.249 of 2017 in order dated 09.10.2019 in No.TN/RO/AMB/68466/CC-II/Area6/2017 dated 06.11.2017 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ezhilraj

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.J.Sathyanarayana Prasad, Standing Counsel

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 09.10.2019, wherein and whereby, the Tribunal admitted the appeal subject to condition, the petitioner deposits 75% of the amount as assessed in the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ambattur, also by granting interim stay on such condition.

¶14

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

¶15

2. Heard both sides.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the order of the Tribunal in directing deposit of 75% of the disputed amount was made without considering the waiver application filed by the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the Tribunal is fully aware of the fact that the petitioner, as the appellant before the Tribunal, moved Petitions for stay and waiver on the ground of financial crisis and even after noticing such contentions, the Tribunal passed the conditional order by recording a reason that the petitioner is a Transport Company, having contract with TASMAC Ltd. for transport of IMFL to various retail units of TASMAC within the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu State and that the cause of delay remittance of statutory contribution does not sound reasonable.

¶17

It is to be noted at this juncture that the amount ordered to be deposited, namely 75% is the statutory requirement while preferring an appeal. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said conditional order passed by the Tribunal while entertaining the appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi To The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Sub Regional Office,Ambattur, R-40, A1, TNHB Shopping cum Office Complex, Thirumangalam, Muguappair Road, Muguappair East, Chennai - 600 037

¶18

+1cc to Mr.J.Sathyanarayana Prasad, Advocate, S.R.No.9011

¶19

W.P.No.2128 of 2020 NR(CO) CS/09/03/2020

¶20

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

Sri Sapthagiri Transport, v. The Asst,. Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sapthagiri Transport, v. The Asst,. 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

S.Kumar Vs The Management of Vasan

A.Durairaj, Vs The Union of India

The Management of Golden Vs Joint Commissioner of Labour

Rr Matric School, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

The Management of Vs M.Rajeswari

Blue Star Tours and Travels Vs Employees State Insurance