Allowed

The Liquidator v. the Assistant Providet Fund

Madras HC26 Oct 2021WP/15151/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the liquidator of a cooperative federation challenging an order determining provident fund dues. The court observed that the impugned order could not be sustained based on the grounds that the establishment was wound up under the TNCS Act and employees were absorbed, and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order determining the liability of the establishment towards provident fund dues dated 09.05.2013 was quashed.

The Liquidator Vs the Assistant Providet Fund — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P.NO.15151 OF 2013 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2013

¶6

The Liquidator, Tamilnadu Cooperative Oilseeds Growers Federation Ltd., 55, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai – 600 097. ... Petitioner .Vs.

¶7

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R), Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Tambaram, 3, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 045. 2. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3. The Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents (R3 impleaded as per order dated 18.06.2013 in M.P.No.2 of 2013 in W.P.No.15151 of 2013)

¶8

PRAYER:-

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the First Respondent relating to his order TB/TAM/RO/ENF/T-2/17312/2012 dated 09.05.2013 and quash the same.

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondents : Mr.R.Vishnu (for R1)

¶12

Mr.C.Harsha Raj Government Counsel (for R2 and R3)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

(Through Video Conference)

¶15

Heard Mr.P.Anbarasan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.R.Vishnu, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent and Mr.C.Harsha Raj, Learned Government Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶16

The First Respondent by an Order No. TB/TAM/RO/ENF/T-2/ 17312/2012 dated 09.05.2013 had determined the liability of M/s.Tamil Nadu Cooperative Oilseeds Growers' Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment' for short) towards provident fund dues for the period from October 2012 to March 2013 under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'EPF Act' for short). The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition by the Petitioner, who is the liquidator of that establishment. According to the Petitioner, the establishment had been wound up under Section 137(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNCS Act' for short) and the Petitioner has been appointed as liquidator under Section 138 of the TNCS Act by proceedings in R.C.No.227626/2001/H1-2 dated 22.12.2004 of the Commissioner of Agriculture/Registrar of Oilseeds Co-operative Societies, which has been published in the Official Gazette, and the employees of the establishment have been permanently absorbed in government service. In such circumstances, it is contended that the First Respondent cannot demand any provident fund dues from the establishment for the period after winding up. It has been further brought to notice that in respect of another order determining the liability of that establishment for provident fund dues for the period from June 2005 to September 2012, this Court by an order dated 29.11.2019 in W.P.No.2737 of 2013 filed by the Petitioner has quashed the same, and a copy of that order has been produced, which is placed on record.

¶17

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made, it would necessarily follow that the impugned order which cannot be

¶18

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

¶19

sustained for the same reasons, is also quashed.

¶20

In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R), Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Tambaram,

¶28

3, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 045.

¶29

The Commissioner of Civil Supplies,

¶30

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶31

The Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai – 600 009.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.P.Anbarasan, Advocate, S.R.No.54771 +1cc to Mr.K.Ramu, Advocate, S.R.No.55529

¶33

W.P.NO.15151 OF 2013

¶34

EV(CO) PBS/09/11/2021

¶35

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

The Liquidator v. the Assistant Providet Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Liquidator v. the Assistant Providet 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

Thiru.Pradeep K.Mohan Vs the Inspector of Plantations

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer

Selliamman Constructions Vs the Enforcement Officer

Swami Vivekananda Vs the Assistant Provident Fund

The Assistant General Manager Vs the Central Government

The Management, Vs the Presiding Officer