Dismissed

M/S.Icon House Hold Products v. the Asst. Commissioner (Comp)

Madras HC12 Jul 2021WP/9383/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking enforcement of a query under Section 7A of the EPF Act. The Court held the petition was devoid of merits as the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy under Section 7-I before approaching the Court, thereby failing to discharge the duty of exhausting alternate remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid on merits. Consequential miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.

M/S.Icon House Hold Products Vs the Asst… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.07.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.9383 of 2014 and WMP.No.8847 of 2021

¶6

M/s.Icon House Hold Products Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director D.Sivasankaran, Plot No.3075, 13^th Main road, 'Z' Block, 4^th street, Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 ... Petitioner Vs

¶7

The Assistant Commissioner (Comp) Employees Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India) 101, 100 Feet road, Sree Venni Commercial Complex Cholan Nagar, Olandai Kerapalayam Puducherry 605 004. 2. The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office, (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India) 101, 100 Feet road, Sree Venni Commercial Complex Cholan Nagar, Olandai Kerapalayam Puducherry 605 004. 3. The Official Liquidator Madras High Court, Corporate Bhavan, 2^nd floor, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. ... Respondents R3 impleaded vide order dated 30.06.2021 made in WMP.No.30602 of 2019 in W.P.No.9383 of 2014 by SVNJ

¶8

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

¶9

Prayer:- This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 21.03.2014 filed under Section 7A of the EPF Act before the 1^st respondent and conduct the enquiry and pass orders on merits within a period fixed by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Vijayakumar For Respondents: Mrs.V.J.Latha

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 21.03.2014 filed under Section 7A of the EPF Act before the 1^st respondent and conduct the enquiry and pass orders on merits within a period fixed by this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Respondents represented that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.7872 of 2014 challenging the order dated 19.03.2014 and this Court did not entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. However, the petitioner, without preferring any appeal under Section 7-I of the EPF Act, chose to file a Review Petition under the provisions of the Act.

¶14

2.1. It is further represented that insofar as W.P.No.9383 of 2014 is concerned, there was an interim order granted upto 04.06.2014 and in the interregnum period, the EPFO has rejected the Review Petition filed by the petitioner.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

It is seen that admittedly, the petitioner, without exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 7-I of the EPF Act, has straightaway approached this Court. Further, the petitioner, instead of putting forth the defence available to him before the Authorities by filing an Appeal, has adopted the tactics of filing writ petitions one after another, so as to protract the proceedings, issued on 19.02.2014 in respect of recovery of arrears of amount, viz., Rs.1,34,383/-. Now almost seven years have gone-by and the petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy has filed this writ petition.

¶17

It is represented that the Company is under the process of liquidation and the proceedings are with the official liquidator. If that is the case, it is open to the employees/EPFO to get the monetary benefits due to them in terms

¶18

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

¶19

of Sections 325 to 327 of the Companies Act, 2013. When the petitioner / Management has not availed the alternative opportunity at the earliest point of time, the contention raised by them that the action initiated by the EPFO, by way of passing a non-speaking order does not hold good, cannot be entertained at this stage.

¶20

Hence, for the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid on merits. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

dpq

¶26

¶27

The Assistant Commissioner (Comp)

¶28

Employees Provident Fund Organisation Sub-Regional Office (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India)

¶29

101, 100 Feet road, Sree Venni Commercial Complex Cholan Nagar, Olandai Kerapalayam

¶30

Puducherry 605 004.

¶31

The Recovery Officer,

¶32

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

¶33

Sub-Regional Office, (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India)

¶34

101, 100 Feet road, Sree Venni Commercial Complex Cholan Nagar, Olandai Kerapalayam

¶35

Puducherry 605 004.

¶36

The Official Liquidator Madras High Court, Corporate Bhavan, 2^nd floor, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.M.Vijayakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.33198

¶38

W.P.No.9383 of 2014 and WMP.No.8847 of 2021

¶39

GJ(CO)

¶40

CB(18/08/2021)

¶41

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

M/S.Icon House Hold Products v. the Asst. Commissioner (Comp)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Icon House Hold Products v. the Asst. Commissioner (Comp)

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 Superintending Engineer Vs S.Anvar Basha

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Asst. Commissioner of

T.Jayaraman Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

M/s.Icon House Hold Products Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Maria .L Vs The Employees Provident Fund Organistation

G.Basker Vs Secretary to Government (Labour) - CUm