Remanded

C.H.02, Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Madras HC4 Feb 2021WP/1974/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, a handloom society, sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the Provident Fund authorities from taking coercive actions during a pending Section 7(A) inquiry. The Court directed the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to afford a personal hearing and complete the inquiry within three months while restraining coercive steps. Petition disposed with directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to afford a personal hearing, complete the Section 7(A) enquiry within three months, and refrain from taking any coercive steps. No costs.

C.H.02, Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :04.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

W.P.No.1974 of 2021 & W.M.P.No.2235 of 2021

¶6

C.H.02, Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Production and Safe Society Rep. By its President N.Elangovan S/o Natarajan No.57, East New Street, Chennimalai-638 051 Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, S.J.Plaza Swarnapuri, Salem-4

¶9

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Regional Office Steel Plant Road, Thalavaipatti, Salem-636 302

¶10

3.The Enforcement Officer

¶11

Employees Provident Fund Organization District Office, Erode, Erode District .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking any corrosive actions against the petitioner society and its Board of Directors.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that during the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pendency of the proceedings U/s. 7(A) Employees Provident

¶15

Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the officials of the respondents organization are taking coercive steps.

¶16

Admittedly, the enquiry U/s.7(A) of the Act is pending from 25.11.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the regular employees have already paid the contribution and for coolie employees who goes to work under different employers on day to day basis, the respondents organization is compelling them to pay the contribution and taking coercive steps.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the grievances raised by the petitioner by affording opportunity of personal hearing and to complete the enquiry U/s. 7(A) of the Act and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying till the order is passed no coercive steps shall be taken.

¶18

Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kpr
To
1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization
Regional Office, S.J.Plaza
Swarnapuri, Salem-4
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Regional Office
Steel Plant Road,
Thalavaipatti, Salem-636 302
3. The Enforcement Officer
Employees Provident Fund Organization
District Office, Erode, Erode District
GP(CO)
SM/02/03/2021

¶19

W.P.No.1974 of 2021 & W.M.P.No.2235 of 2021

¶20

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

C.H.02, Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.H.02, Chennimalai Siragiri Murugan v. The Regional 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

P.Maruthairaj Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Ravikumar, Vs M/s.Toll (India) Logistics

The Management of Hotel Himalaya Vs The Presiding Officer

Kanchi Kamakoti childs Trust Vs The Joint Commissioner of

S.Krishngandhi Vs The General Manager

B.Komarapalayam Primary Agricultural Vs v.Muthusamy