Dismissed

Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1

Madras HC20 Dec 2022WP/6838/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited challenged an order imposing interest and damages. The Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the EPF Act within two weeks and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the EPF Act within two weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. Vs Regional Provident… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. No.6838 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P. No.6838 of 2020

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.8144 of 2020

¶9

Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited TWAD House, 31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Represented by its Managing Director .. Petitioner vs.

¶10

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - 1, 37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai - 600 014.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to two orders No.TN/CHN-1/CC- II(PDC)/TN/12173/D-526/2019, dated 16.12.2019 passed by the respondent, pertaining to damages and interest and to quash the same and issue directions to the respondent to rectify the errors apparent on the face of record, re-calculate the dues and restrain from initiating recovery proceedings

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Shrijayanthi For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Sundaram

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/5

¶16

W.P. No.6838 of 2020

¶17

ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated

¶18

16.12.2019 passed under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, wherein the interest and damages amount payable by the petitioner has been determined by the respondent.

¶19

Till date, counter has not been filed by the respondent. Admittedly, if aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.12.2019, the petitioner is having the right to prefer a statutory appeal under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Instead of exercising the said right, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit on instructions that the petitioner is willing to file a statutory appeal as against the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 before the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of the EPF Act.

¶21

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent though opposes the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has filed the writ petition in the year 2020 itself, challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2019, the petitioner must be permitted to

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/5

¶24

W.P. No.6838 of 2020

¶25

file the statutory appeal as per the provisions of the EPF Act.

¶26

No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if such a direction is issued.

¶27

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of the EPF Act as against the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Appellate Tribunal shall entertain the said appeal and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

20.12.2022

¶29

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vsi2

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/5

W.P. No.6838 of 2020

To :

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - 1, 37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai - 600 014.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

4/5

¶37

W.P. No.6838 of 2020

¶38

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶39

vsi2

¶40

W.P. No.6838 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.8144 of 2020

¶41

20.12.2022

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

5/5

Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1

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

R.Anbu Vs The Management of

G. Jayapal Vs The Joint Director of School Education

P.Sundari Vs The Director

A.Senthur Pandian Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G.Rajendran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.v.Natarajan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu