Disposed

M/s. Krishna Electrical Works v. The Union of India

Telangana HC2 Jan 2025WP/37126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restrained EPFO authorities and a bank from encashing a cheque issued by M/s. Krishna Electrical Works pending the Tribunal's decision on a stay application regarding recovery of statutory dues, noting that proceedings were premature if the delay condonation was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 restrained from encashing cheque No. 147180 dated 23.12.2024 or any other negotiable instrument till the Tribunal adjudicates the stay application, subject to the delay condona

M/s. Krishna Electrical Works Vs The Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^3166l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:37126 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Krishna Electrical Works, H NO.2-6-71l1 . Sinoar Base Street, Nara yanpet, Mahabubnagar DIST. Rep. by its pROpRIETOiR

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Union of lndia, rep. by its secretary Ministry of Labour and Emprovment. Govt. of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, N"*b-Jni_ r rO06i:'"'-"''

¶13

2 The Assistant Provident Fund- C_ommi:qioner, (Compliance ll- Madhapur) and Authority U/S 7A of EPF and Mp Act, 19S2 Emplovees provident furia' '^{-' -} Organization. Regional Office, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Regional P.F. commissioner - il and Recovery officer, Regionar office, Employees Provident Fund Organization. Regionai Office, iiyd6rabiO.^--'

¶15

4 [!g_egnc! Ygqrq"r,^{State Bank_of tndia,Opp. ManoharTatkies Civit Lane,} Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar -50921 0.

¶16

5 The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, TGSpDCL, Narayanpet

¶17

6 The General Manager/SP, Corp - Office Mint Compound, Hyderabad

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the Rature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS decraring the action of Respondent no. 2 had issued Prohibitory order vide proceedings No. TS/Ro/HyD-ll/s24s2lRcell/S1902/RCNo.13l2o24l2o24- 2sts27, dated 19.06.2024 issued to the Branch Manager, state Bank of rndia, Narayanpet Branch, Narayanpet-Sog2.r 0 revying an amount of Rs. 55,78,874l-( Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs seventy Eight rhousand Eight Hundred and seventy Four) towards statutory Dues for the period 6t2017 to

¶20

04/209 attaching^{the Bank Account of the Petitioner of the Respondent No.4 Bank} directing the^{Managerto transfer an amount of Rs 55'78'8741towards} Contributions and also^{consequential Prohibitory Order No TS/RO-/HYD-} llts2 s2tR.cELL/RCNo.131202412024-202511096dated30.09-2024issuedby Respondent no.^{3 directing the Respondent No. 5 and 6 to recover the unpaid bills} withtheofficeand.remittheSametotheEPFOinfavouroftheRegionalPF commissioner,^{Hyderabadas it being arbitrary,illegal, unjustified,in violation of} principles of natural iustice^{pending the matter before the central Government} lndustrialTribunalCumProvidentFundAppellantTribunal,atHyderabad.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under se<;tion^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspend the^{Proceedingsof Prohibitoryorder vide proceedihgsNo.TS/RO/HYD-} ltt52452tR-cell/51902/RCNo.^{13t202412024-25t527daled 19.06.2024issued to the} Branch Manager, State^{Bank of India, Narayanpet Branch, NarayanpeGs0g210} levying an amount of^{Rs. 55,78,8741 ( Rupees Fifty Five LakhsSeventy Eight} Thousand Eight Hundred^{and SeventyFour) towardsstatutory Dues for the period} 6t2017 to 04/209^{attaching the Bank Account of the Petitionerof the Respondent} No.4 Bank directing^{the Managerto transfer an amount of Rs. 55,78,874l- towards} contributions and also^{consequentialProhibitory orderNo. TS/RO-/HYD-} lvs24s2tR.cELL/RC^{No. 13t2024t2124-2025t1096dated30.09.2024 issued by} Respondent no. 3 directing^{the Respondent No. 5 and 6 to recover the unpaid bills} with the office and^{remit the sameto the EPFOin favourof the Regional PF} commissioner^{pending hearingof the matter before the centralGovernment} lndustrial Tribunal^{cumProvident Fund AppellantTribunal, at Hyderabad.}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRIM. KIRAN KUMAR}

¶24

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.l to 3: SRI G. VENKATESWARLU'SC} Gounsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.S and 6: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC} The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶26

WRIT PETITION N0.37126 0F 20/24

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.S and 6 and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

¶29

Having regard to the nature of ljs involved and manner of disposal of the Writ^petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofhcial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Pe tition.

¶30

Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the petitioner in brief, is that aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2"d respondent dated 28.O3.2024, the petitioner has fiIed an Appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad on OS.Og.2024; that along with the Appeal hled, it has also hled interlocutory application seeking stay of recovery of EpF amount demanded

¶31

¶32

i&-

¶33

under [he proceedings^{dated 28.O3'2O24; and that the r;aid stay} application is^{yet to be taken up for hearing'}

¶34

4 . Learned^(lounsel for^{the petitioner furthersubr oits that} the Appeal f-rle1 by^{the petitioner on 05 08 2024 akrng with} interlocutory^{application seeking stay of recovery of the amount} in terms of tht:^{order dated 28.03'2024is receivedrride USR} No.473 ol 2a24^{and is yet to be numbered'}

¶35

Petitioner further^{contends that though the said Appeal} was hled v"'ith some^{delay, the condone delay petition u'as heard} by the Tribr-Ln al^{on 27.12.2024and the delay in filing the said} Appeal was corLdoned,^{thoughthe copy of the order is yet to be} made available^{to him.}

¶36

Petitioner further^{contendsthat if the respondent} authorities we:e^{allowed to proceed with the recovery of the} amount pursuant^{to the order dated 28 O3 2024,Lhe} stay application w,ruld become infructuous^{and as such} the respondent authorities^{are to be restrainedfrom recoveringthe} amount pendirg^{considerationof the stayapplicatic'n by the} Tribuna l.

¶37

Per contra, learned^{StardingCounselappearing on behalf} of respondent^{Nos. 1 to 3 by drawing attention of the Court to} communicatiorr dated^{24 .12.2024 addressedby thesth}

¶38

¶39

respondent to the 6n respondent, would submit that the authorities have already issued a cheque for an amount of

¶40

Rs.55,79,374 /- as being the dues of EpF from the petitioner, urde cheque No. i47180 d,ated 23.12.2024 and. thus the authorities have already recovered the aforesaid amount.

¶41

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the aforesaid amount is already recovered, in the event of the petitroner succeeding in the Appeal filed by it, the amount would be refunded / adj u sted towards the future payment in terms of the provisions of the Act.

¶42

I have taken note of lhe respective contentions urged.

¶43

It is settled position of law that the remedy of Appeal provided under the Act cannot be made nugatory by the authorities taking steps to recover the amount pending consideration of the interlocutory application hled seeking stay of the collection. Though the petitioner claims to have filed an Appeal along with an interlocutory application seeking stay of recovery, it is to be noted that the said Appeal filed on O5.O8.2O24 was with a delay and thus the Tribunal was required to first consider the application filed for condoning the delay in hiing of the Appear. Since, the petitioner had asserted of the Tribunal having condoned the delay on 22.12.2024, t:ne

¶44

¶45

¶46

Appeal as filed^{try the petitioner on 05 08 2O24 uideUSR No'473} of 2024 is now^{required to be taken on record'}

¶47

On the Tribunal^{taking on record the aforesairlAppeal} frled by the^p€ titioner,^{interlocutory applicationhledtherein} seeking stay^{of ;:ecoveryof paymentwould have to be considered} on its merits.^{However, the said stagehas not yet cor, e' since} the condone^{delay petitionis stated to havebeen allowedonly} on 27.12.2O?4

¶48

However, in^{the meantime if the respondent authorities} recover the zrmounts^{from the respondent Nos 5 and 6 then the} stay applicatiot-r^{becomesinfructuouseven assumingLhat the} petitioner is recluired^{to make payment of 7 5o/o of the dermand as} per the Act.

¶49

Since, the^{respondent Nos.S and 6 claim to have paidthe} amount of Rs.55,79,3741-^{to respondentNos 2 anrl 3uide} cheque bearinSi^{No.147180d.aLed 23.12'2024, this Court is of} the view that in^{the event of the respondentauthoritiesnot} presenting the aforesaid^{instrument for encashmentrvith their} bankers as of^{tlate, the respondent authorities, in particular the} respondent^{Nors.2 and 3 are to be restrained from prest:nting the} same for enctrshment^{ti11 the Tribunaladjudicates the stay} application^{{iled in the APPeal.}

¶50

/,-. ./

¶51

¶52

Accordingly, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby restrained from encashing the cheque bearing No. 147g0 dated 23.12.2024 or any other negotiable instrument as issued bj, respondent Nos.S and 6 in respect of the amounts payable to petitioner, if not already encahsed, till orders are passed by the Tribunal in the stay application.

¶53

It is made clear that in the event of condone delay petition filed by the petitioner in the Appeal is dismissed by the Tribunal, the protection granted hereby would not be applicable. 16. Subject to the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition sha11 stand closed.

¶55

SD/.P. PADMANABHA R DDY ASSISTANTRKI RAR

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

,!, L The Secretary Mlnistry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of lndia, Shram ShaKi Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 1 i 0d01 .

¶59

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (Compliance ll- Madhapur) and Authority U/S 7A of EPF and MP Act, 1952 Eniplovdes provident Fun'd Organization. Regional Office, Hyderabad.

¶60

The Regional P.F. Commissionei - ll and Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organization. Regionai Office, Hyd6rabad.

¶61

The Branch !1gnager, State Bahk of lndia, O[p. ManoharTaikies Civil Lane, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar -509210.

¶62

The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, TGSPDCL, Narayanpet

¶63

The G-errera!-Mq1qg9r/SP, Corp - ffice Mint Compound, Hyder;bad

¶64

One CC to Sri M. Kiran Kumai. Advocate IOPUC]

¶65

One CC to Sri G. Venkateswarlu, SCIOPUCI

¶66

One CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, SCIOPUCI

¶67

10.Two CD Copies

TJ BS

t I

! ,i i I I

HIGH COURT

CG TODAY

DATED:0210112025

ORDER

WP.No.37126^o12024

r\E.'iT4is o
q
(v
0,i .:;'l'l !tl?5 a
.L
'.*
:.-..

¶77

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

M/s. Krishna Electrical Works v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Krishna Electrical Works v. The Union of India

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

Iqballunisa Memorial Trust, Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary

D.Kushal Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

T. Bhupal Reddy, Warangal Dist and Another Vs State of Telangana., Hyd and 9 Others

S. Lachi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Chintamani Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

P. Bhagyalakshmi Vs State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary