Disposed

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Madras HC6 Feb 2024WP(MD)/2317/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An employer sought mandamus to permit refund of employers' share of provident fund contributions in 40 monthly instalments after the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner demanded payment. The Court directed payment in 15 equal monthly instalments commencing March 2024 and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to refund Rs.34,62,270/- to respondent in 15 equal monthly instalments from March 2024, each on or before the 5th; no costs.

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.2317 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.2317 of 2024 and WMP(MD) No.2333 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Pvt Limited, Dindigul,

¶8

Rep.by its Assistant General Manager HR

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner-II, EPF Organisation, District Office, Bava Lodge Building, Dindigul 624 003.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 34,62,270 /- to the respondent in 40 equal monthly instalments.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M. Elanchezhian For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravikumar Standing Counsel

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.2317 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 34,62,270 /- to the respondent in 40 equal monthly instalments.

¶20

2 .By consent of both parties and considering the limited relief

¶21

sought for by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶22

3.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

4.The petitioner received a letter, dated 18.11.2022 from the respondent stating that considering the strength of the petitioner’s mill being more than 1000, the petitioner was directed to refund the employers’ share of 12% contributions, for which, the petitioner duly replied on 18.04.2023. That apart, the petitioner has requested the respondent to grant instalment facility for

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.2317 of 2024

¶27

payment of Rs.34,62,270/- in 40 equal monthly instalments. However, the same was not considered. Hence, this petition came to be filed.

¶28

5.Considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner and

¶29

observing that it is the mandatory duty on the part of the petitioner to make payment of statutory dues the respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to refund the entire amount of Rs.34,62,270/- to the respondent in 15 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall commence from the month of March, 2024 and every instalment shall be paid on or before 5^th of every English calendar month.

¶30

6.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

06.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PNM

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.2317 of 2024

¶36

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶37

PNM

¶38

ORDER IN W.P.(MD).No.2317 of 2024 and WMP(MD) No.2333 of 2024

¶39

06.02.2024

¶40

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

¶41

4/4

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

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

Saravanan.v Vs The Managing Director

Selvaraj.P Vs The Managing Director

Vijayakumar Vs The Senior Regional Manager

R.Rachel Jeeva Light Vs The General Manager

Sugirthabai Jayaseeli.K Vs The District Collector cum Chairman

Suresh Babu.S Vs The Director of School Education