M/s. United Rail Road Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021WP/23728/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the operation of prohibitory orders attaching the petitioner's account and EPFO orders under Section 7A, allowing 30 days to file an appeal once the Central Industrial Tribunal's Presiding Officer is appointed.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of impugned orders dated 05.08.2021 and 13.09.2021 and prohibitory orders until an order appointing the Presiding Officer of the CGIT is received.

M/s. United Rail Road Consultants Pvt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23728 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS pVT. LTD., Rep. bv K. Suresh Murthy, aged_ 62 years, S/o. lr,4.V. Krishna Murthy, Senior Geneial Manager, M/s. United Rait and Road^pvt. Ltd., 12-'13-485l3, Street No.20,3rd Ft5or, Nagarjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 017.

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees provident Fund

¶12

9.r.ga11zgtio.n^{(Nllni-stry^ofLabour, Governmehtcif lndia), 3-4-763, Barkatpura,} HYDERABAD - 5OO 02

¶13

Employeqq Provident Fund Organization, lnspector (appointed u/ Sec. 13 of the [i.[fgt_s_z),_(v!]r]gtry-oj^{Labour, Government of tndla),3-4-763, Barkatpura,} HYDERABAD - 5OO 027.

¶14

,..RESPONOENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the actions of the Respondent as abuse of the process of law, illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind, and outside the scope of law, legally void and unsustainable. Accordingly quash and set aside orders passed under Sec. 7A of the Act 52 vide 1) the Order No. TS/RO/HYD-1 (8KPy32700/Compliance-ll/T-112021167, dated 05/08/2021 (Annexure - p-1) and 2) the Order passed under Sec. 7A of the Act 52, vide Order No. TS/RO/HYD-I (80)l53774lcompliance-lllT-1 12021168, dated O5/OB/2021. (Annexure - p -2.), as there is no provision for the Petitioner to make remittances in respect of the employees who were already enrolled and remittances made and equally there is no provision for the Respondent to receive the money, even if the petitioner makes the payment to the Respondent.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶17

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased ro stay the operation of the following orders. 1)The Order No. TS/RO/HYD-l (BKP)l32700l3ompliance-ll/T-112021t67, dated 05.08.2021 (Annexure p -1) 2)The Order passed under Sec. 7A of the Act 52, vide Order No. TS/RO/HyDl(BKP)l53774lcompliance-ll/T-112021t6Bdated OSlOBl2O2l. (Annexure -p 2) 3)Prohibitory orders No. TS/Ro/HYD/BKpls3774lc-|tr-1lBFt2021- 22ti28, dated 9l13logl2o21 for Rs. 61,58,029/- 4)prohibitory Orders No. TS/RO/HYD/BKPl53774lC-lllr4BFt2021- 22t145, dated gti3-o9.2021 for Rs.2,42,98,7571.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. SURENDRANATH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G. VENKATESHVARLU, SC FOR EPFO

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HC N'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶23

!^,RITPETITION No.23728 of 2OZ1

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard lear ted counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for EPFO

¶26

The grievar ce of the petitioner is that two separate orders dated 05.08.2021 were cassed against the petitioner by the respondent No.1 under Section 7A of the Employees, provident Funds and lvlisceilaneous Provisions Act, 1,52 (for short 'the Act,), followed by two prohibitory orders dated 1:.09.202L directing petitioner,s bank (Axis Bank, Tarnaka) for atta hing the bank account of the petitioner. On account of the same, th€ petitioner is not able to make payments towards salaries of his em rloyees.

¶27

. Learned sr anding counsel submitted that petitioner has a remedy of appea under Section 7(I) of the Act before the Central Government Indu trial Tribunal (CGIT).

¶28

Learned co rnsel for the petitioner submitted that an amount to the tune of Rs.87, l0,0OO/- was released by the EPFO on the request of the petitioner for release of salaries and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the ame. A sum of Rs.11.OO,OOO/- is still lying in the bank account of t re company. Section 7(O) of the Act makes it clear that no appeal sh rll be entertained unless the employer deposits 75%o of the amount dur . However, as per the proviso to Section 7(O) of the Act, the appellate authority has got power to waive the amount to be deposited.

¶29

Learned cor nsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal is not functioning : lnce the presiding Officer has retired and new

¶30

)

¶31

Presiding Officer is not^{appointed. The petitioner is incapacitatedto} seek any interim orders^{before the Appellate Authority. He further} submitted that in similar^{circumstances,order dated 02.11'2021 was} passed in WP.No.27493 of 2021 directing not to^{takecoercive steps} against the^petitioner therein^{as CGITis not functioning.}

¶32

In the circumstances, this^{Court is of the viewthat writ petition} can be disposed of suspending^{the impugnedorders/prohibitoryorders} dated 05.08.2021 and 13'09.2021^{untllPresiding Officer is appointed} to CGIT. This order shall^{remain in force for a periodof 30 days from} the date the^{PresidingOfficer is appointedto CGIT so as to enablethe} petitioner to file an application for^{grant of interim relief in the appeal'}

¶33

The writ petition is^{accordingly,disposed of'Pending} miscellaneous applications,^{if any, shall standclosed.There shall be no} order as to costs.

¶34

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTA^{NT REGISTRAR} //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^O ER

¶35

To, 1 Reoional Provident Fund Commissioner ' Employees Provident Fund oi lndia)'^{3-4-763' Barkatpura'}

¶36

ordanization,^(Ministry "?i;ili;;:e;;tnme'it jn"

¶37

,E[?F9E'+];v,lif FPF Act 52),^(Ministry fu^ot t..3;3it'"'J5,?,1:'.?:?iJd13i5r[?3.1',f,",i;l;# xvoenneAD^{- 500 027500 027}

¶38

xvoenneAD^{- 500 027500 027}

¶39

3 4. 6 One CC ;; ec^{i;' to Sri 5 G} i .l,i: Il;3;;jf^Venka rlg[?;,1?t'"|9Y %,,.i

¶40

Two^CDCopies

¶41

One^{SPare CoPY}

SITI BSr

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411212021

OROER

....<br>4O;
? 1 DETI

WP.No.23728 of 2021

DISPOSING OF THE V 'P WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

+
q L
D(

M/s. United Rail Road Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. United Rail Road Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another

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

Neelam Rathan Kumar , Chintu Vs The State of Telangana

Nenavath Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

M.A. Razak Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Richa Holdings Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Mr. Raja Rao Mulkala Vs The Union of India

Arke Santhosh Vs State of Telangana and 3 Others