Dismissed

Central Rice Researc v. R.P.Fund Commnr.

Orissa HC22 Apr 2019WP(C)/17824/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order requiring document production under Section 7A of EPF Act held premature as petitioner approached court instead of participating in ongoing enquiry; disposed with liberty to approach forum if cause of action survives.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty granted to approach appropriate forum if any cause of action survives.

Central Rice Researc Vs R.P.Fund Commnr. — Execution and Attachment | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 17824 of 2010

¶2

07 22.04.2019 Heard Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.

¶3

The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by the Enforcement Officer calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents when he was causing enquiry under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.

¶4

Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that some of the employees, those who have been engaged under contractor having been paid their salary by their own employer not by the present petitioner. Therefore, the question of any payment of provident fund dues to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization does not arise. So far as the enquiry is concerned, it is the Enforcement Officer, who called upon the petitioner to produce certain documents, which the petitioner is not in a position as the employees are not the employees of CRRI, rather they are employees of some contractor. Therefore, the petitioner is not able to produce certain documents before the authority concerned.

¶5

Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 contended that this application is premature one in view of the fact that at the time of enquiry the petitioner approached this Court. If the documents are not available, the petitioner may participate in the process of enquiry and raise any objection. Instead of doing so, he approached this Court by

¶6

filing this application, which cannot sustainable in the eye of law.

¶7

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records it appears that at the stage of enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952, the petitioner approached this Court. Certain groups of employees are the employees of the petitioner or employees of the contractors, that has to be considered by the Enforcement Officer under Enquiry, therefore, the Enforcement Officer sought necessary documents from the authority so that the authority can come to conclusion. Instead of doing so, since the petitioner approached this Court by filing this application, which is a premature one, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if any cause of action survives.

¶8

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty aforesaid.

¶9

.….……………………

¶10

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J

¶11

Ajaya

Central Rice Researc v. R.P.Fund Commnr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Rice Researc v. R.P.Fund Commnr.

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

Jyotsnamayee Kanungo Vs State of Odisha

Bidyadhar Jena Vs State of Orissa

Renubala Rath Vs Mahila Vikas Samabay

Krushna Ch.Mohapatra Vs State

Laxmidhar Vs O.M.T.C.A.D.C.

Pratap Ch.Das Vs O.S.R.T.C.