Allowed

M/s.Shelton Hospitality Pvt. limited, v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Telangana HC3 Aug 2012WP/23841/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings initiated by the EPFO while its review application was pending. The court directed respondents not to enforce the recovery notice if the petitioner deposits Rs.2,00,000 within four weeks, subject to further orders in the review application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to enforce recovery notice dated 17-7-2012 if petitioner deposits Rs.2,00,000 within four weeks.

M/s.Shelton Hospitality Pvt. limited, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23841 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Employees Provident Fund Organization appearing for the respondents.

¶5

This writ petition is filed with a prayer, which reads as under:

¶6

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in initiating the recovery proceedings dt.17-7-2012 in pursuance of the order made in AP/57318/RJY/Compl/2012/669, dt.30-5-2012 inspite of pendency of review application filed by the petitioner to review order dt.30-5-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to dispose of the review application dt.20-7-2012 filed by the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶7

The petitioner, a private company, is running a Hotel and Restaurant in Rajahmundry. According to the petitioner, it has been contributing provident fund in respect of its employees. While so, the 1^st respondent-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajahmundry, has issued order dated 30.05.2012 invoking the provisions under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’), determining an amount of Rs.6,15,457/- payable by the petitioner towards the provident fund contributions, pension fund contributions etc, in respect

¶8

of certain employees working in the petitioner establishment. It is stated by the petitioner that as against the said order, it has filed a Review application under Section 7-B of the Act before the 1^st respondent and the same is pending.

¶9

In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though the Review application filed by him before the 1^st respondent is pending, the Recovery Officer issued a notice/order under Section 8F of the Act on 17.07.2012 to the 2^nd respondent Bank directing it to remit the amount due by the petitioner, by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the Recovery Officer, from the amount it is holding in the account of the petitioner under S.B/Current Account Number 62044443565 maintained in its Bank.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provident fund in respect of the trainees is not payable as the trainees cannot be treated as employees.

¶11

As much as the primary authority has already determined the amount due by the petitioner at Rs.6,15,457/- and the Review application filed by the petitioner under Section 7-B of the Act against the order dated 30.05.2012 is still pending, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to record a finding on the pleas raised by the petitioner. However, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to enforce the order/notice dated 17.07.2012 in proceedings No.GR/RJY/RECOVERY OFFICER/57318/278 issued by the Recovery Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organization under Section 8-F of the Act, provided the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the time framed by this Court, it is open to the respondents to enforce the order/notice dated 17.07.2012. Further, it is made clear that the amount so deposited by the petitioner

¶12

shall be subject to further orders in Review application filed under Section 7-B of the Act.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶14

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶16

03.08.2012 Note: Communicate operative portion by wire B/o v v

M/s.Shelton Hospitality Pvt. limited, v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Shelton Hospitality Pvt. limited, v. The Assistant 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

A.P.Transmission Corporation Vs The Controlling Authority under payment of Gratutity Act and

Smt.Pasupuleti Vijaya Laxmi Vs Sri Kambampati Naryana Jr College

P.Brahmaiah Vs The District Coop. Officer

Sona Singh Vs The District Collector

Hajeera Begum Vs The Branch Manager

G. Someshwar Rao Vs The Special Collector