Karnataka High Court
M/S Lingegowda Detective And vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 16 March, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
W.P. Nos. 37766-37767/2017 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
M/S LINGEGOWDA DETECTIVE &
SECURITY AGENCY, NO.408,
USHA APARTMENTS,
16TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. B.L. CHANDRASHEKHAR. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJEEV B. L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER (C&R)
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT
FUND ORGANIZATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE -
BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,
NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025 .... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS BOTH DTD 24.08.2016
PASSED BY THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
(PD) THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AT ANNEXURES - 'J' AND
'J1'.
2
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed against the common orders bearing No. KN/BN/RO/PD/18546/BD-III/653 & 654/2016-17 both dated 24.08.2016 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (PD) (Annexure-J and J1). The petitioner-Security Agency in these writ petitions has sought for quashing of the said orders and to grant such other relief as the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The grievance of the petitioner-Security Agency in these petitions is that, it was carrying on the business of supplying security personnel and due to some unavoidable situation and inconvenience, it closed down the business with effect from 01.06.2008 permanently. Then the respondent-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has initiated proceedings under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the 'PF Act') vide notice No. KN/PF/ENF/CIR-11/BD- III/284/2008 dated 21.05.2008 and the petitioner-Security 3 Agency was asked to produce the relevant records. On verification of the documents, the respondent concluded that the petitioner had not paid the Employees' Provident Fund contribution on Dearness Allowance for the period from August 2005 to June 2008 and by order dated 16.09.2008 he determined the dues to the extent of Rs.10,36,944/- for the said period and after some deductions toward payment already made, he directed the petitioner-Security Agency to pay a sum of Rs.5,44,768/-, and on failure of payment of the said amount, he passed an order for attachment on 21.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Security Agency has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties on both sides, has set aside the said orders and remanded the matter to the respondent.
3. After remand, the matter was re-heard and the claim amount was paid by the petitioner. Later, after one year, the respondent again claimed some damages and interest. Due to non-payment of the same, the respondent passed orders dated 24.08.2016 under Section 4 14-B and 7Q of the PF Act and demand notice dated 19.06.2017 was issued calling the petitioner-Security Agency to deposit a sum of Rs.4,43,714/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, challenging the said notice, the Tribunal declined to grant any interim order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Security Agency has contended that, the impugned orders are prima facie illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case, as they are non-speaking orders since there are no cogent reasons for levying huge damages and interest for the alleged short delay in payment. He also contended that the respondent has not exercised the discretionary power vested in him under Section 14-B of the PF Act and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner-Security Agency. Further he submitted that, the demand amount of Rs.4,43,714/- towards damages and interest exceeds the amount assessed by the respondent. He also submits that, though an Appellate Tribunal was constituted in Bengaluru, since no Presiding Officer was posted, the cases 5 transferred from New Delhi were getting adjourned and no fresh appeal could be filed and therefore, he is before this court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitions may be dismissed stating that, actually, these writ petitions should not have been filed, since already the statutory appeal is pending before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and in which notice has been already ordered.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, I am of the opinion, that when statutory notice by respondent directing the petitioner to pay the damages and interest has been issued and when the same was challenged by the petitioner-Security Agency before the EPF Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal has issued notice to the respondent, it is not appropriate for this court to go into the order passed by respondent.
6
7. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of directing the EPF Appellate Authority to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders at the earliest.
8. Further, in respect of the damages and interest, which is sought to be paid along with the interest, the petitioner-Security Agency is directed to deposit 50% of the same within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to that till disposal of the case before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, the respondent is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*