Dismissed

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, v. M/s. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research Jipmer

Madras HC11 Mar 2020WP/5863/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's appeal against WRIT Petition No. 5863/2020. The Court ruled that the Tribunal correctly set aside the authority's order for non-consideration of outsourcing facts and exemptions, remanding the matter for a reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs; miscellaneous petition closed.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.NO.5863 OF 2020 AND WMP NO.6875 OF 2020

¶6

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Funds Organisation Regional Office No.101, 100 Feet Road, Sri Venni Commercial Complex, Cholan Nagar, Olandaikeerapalayam, Puducherry - 605 004. ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research JIPMER Rep. by its Director Dhanwantri Nagar, Gurimedu, Puducherry - 605 006. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Appellate Tribunal dated 07.08.2019 made in EPFA261/2017 (ATA No.569 (13) 2013) and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.V.J.Latha

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner has initiated proceedings against the respondent for payment of dues for engaging Coolies and Contract employees during the period from May 2001 to March 2012 and passed an order on 11.06.2013 demanding outstanding dues of Rs.3,35,19,950/-. Against which, the respondent has taken a stand that they engaged all those Coolies and Contract employees through outsourcing and that the conditions of the contract is that the Contractor shall pay EPF dues to the employees. Even though the said that fact has been submitted before the original authority namely the Regional Provident Fund

¶13

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

¶14

Commissioner, it was not considered and the above said amount was directed to be remitted. Against which, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after elaborately discussing the issues has found that one of the outsourcing agency viz., M/s.G-4 Facility Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., which provides Coolies to the respondent's institution for cleaning and sanitary purpose from 01.07.2012 was found to have been allotted Code No.PC/1770. But, it further reveals from the materials on record that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider the very fact of the outsourcing otherwise could have fastened liabilities on the above service provider. Further, it was found that the action was taken in the year 2012 only after the complaint came to be lodged by the Coolie Union and therefore, the Tribunal has set aside that order and remanded the matter back for passing a reasoned order taking into account all the materials produced by the respondent before it. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fact that the respondent had engaged Coolies directly is admitted by them and on the basis of the datas submitted by the respondent only, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions.

¶17

Admittedly, the Coolies were engaged through Contractors by the respondent. There is a specific condition by the respondent that the Contractor shall meet the EPF obligations of the contract labourers. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal also shows that one of the outsourcing agency was given coverage under Code No.PC/1770. This factum, as rightly observed by the Appellate Tribunal was not at all considered by the petitioner. The petitioner had mechanically applied the definition under Section 1(3) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, subject to the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act, has passed the order that the respondent institution is also covered under the Act. There is no discussion about the exemption granted to them and that the amount demanded from the respondent for the outsourced employees were not at all considered. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly set aside the order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. Therefore, it is for the Authority to consider all the materials to pass a reasoned order as directed by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶18

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

¶19

In fine, the writ petition merits no consideration and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
TK
To
1.The Director
M/s.Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical
Education and Research JIPMER
Dhanwantri Nagar, Gurimedu,
Puducherry - 605 006.
2.The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.V.J.Latha, Advocate Sr.No. 21447
W.P.NO.5863 OF 2020
BR(CO)
RMP(24/07/2020)

¶21

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

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, v. M/s. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research Jipmer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, v. M/s. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research Jipmer

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

The Executive Officer Vs the Inspector of Labour

S.Sivarasu, S/o. P.Subbiyan, Vs The Registrar

B.Sivaramalingam Vs The Regional Manager

The Special Officer Vs Secy.,(for B.Chellappan)

Superintendent of Post Offices Vs G.Panneerselvam

The Managing Director Vs v.Sivalingam