Allowed

M/s.Goms Integrated Facility Management v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Madras HC20 Jul 2021WP/14969/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition filed by an employer challenging an EPFO order under Section 7A. The court, noting the pandemic and availability of a review remedy, permitted the petitioner to file a review within one week upon payment of costs, allowing for a fresh enquiry and filing of additional documents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is permitted to file a review within one week upon payment of Rs. 15,000 costs, with permission to file additional documents in support of the case.

M/s.Goms Integrated Facility Management Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.07.2021

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

W.P.No.14969 of 2021
and
WMP.No.15858 of 2021

¶5

M/s.GOMS Integrated Facility Management Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
# 18/9, Maharishi Garden,
3rd Floor, CIT Colony, 5th Cross Street,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.... Petitioner

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Comp),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
(Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India)
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
No.37, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai-600 014.... Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the respondent in proceedings no.CHN-
1/D/26/TN/1632853/Enf/Regl/2021 and quash its order dated
30.06.2021 and consequently direct the respondent to hold afresh
enquiry under Section 7A of EPF & MP Act by giving due
opportunity to the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner: Mr.S.Ravindran
 Senior Counsel
 for Mr.S.Bazeerahamed.

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.R.Vishnu (R1)

¶11

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition
challengingtheproceedingsno.CHN-
1/D/26/TN/1632853/Enf/Regl/2021 passed by the respondent dated
30.06.2021 and consequently direct the respondent to hold a fresh
enquiry under Section 7A of Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act') by
giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

2. Mr.R.Vishnu, learned counsel takes notice for the
first respondent. By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition
is taken up for hearing and disposed of at the stage of admission
itself.

¶14

3. Normally, this Court will not entertain a Writ
Petition of this nature, as the Petitioner/Management, without
exhausting the Appeal remedy has straight away approached this
Court. However, in the present case on hand the petitioner has
got a remedy by way of review and therefore this Court is
inclined to interfere with the order taking note of the pandemic
situation prevailed during that time.

¶15

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of and the
petitioner is permitted to file review within the time stipulated
under the Act, on payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- in toto as
ordered by the Employees Provident Fund Authorities, within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On such review being filed, the employer is also permitted
to file additional documents in support of the contention as the
order passed under Section 7 A of the Act is an exparte order and
Review needs to be decided on merits and denovo enquiry need to
be conducted and a decision should be rendered. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶16

 Sd/-
 Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

 Sub Assistant Registrar
arr

¶19

To

¶20

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Comp),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
(Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India)
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
No.37, Royapettah High Court,
Chennai-600 014.

¶21

W.P.No.14969 of 2021

¶22

NMI(CO)
SB(27/08/2021)

¶23

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

M/s.Goms Integrated Facility Management v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Goms Integrated Facility Management v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

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

K. Arumugam Vs the Presiding Officer

V. Mahesh Vs the Presiding Officer

J. Rajasekar Vs the Presiding Officer

M/s.Goms Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Pf Commissioner (Compliance)

The Secretary Vs Appellate Authority

Sodex Vs the Deputy Commissioner of