M/S Sri Varamahalakshmi Education ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 13 August, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Sri Varamahalakshmi Education ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 13 August, 2018

Bench: Ravi Malimath

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

             ON THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

          WRIT PETITION No.47601 OF 2011 (L-PF)


BETWEEN:

M/s.Sri Varamahalakshmi Education Trust,
Represented by its Secretary,
Mr.Putta Swamy Gowda,
Lakshmipuram, Hassan.                  ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.J. Kanikaraj, Advocate)

AND:

The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office, Yashoram Chambers,
Rathnagiri Road,
Chikmagalur-577 101                     ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri.G.M. Ananda, Advocate)

       This writ petition is filed under Article 226 read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order
dated 12.07.2010 at Annexure-A to this writ passed by the
respondent under Section 26(B) of the Employees' Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
                                      2


      This writ petition coming on for hearing, this day, the
Court made the following:

                                ORDER

The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order vide Annexure-"A" passed by the respondent in exercise of its power contained under para 26(B) of The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.

2. He contends that unless and until the employer and employee are heard, no order could be passed under the said provision of law. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Having heard learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.

4. The impugned order is passed under the provisions of para 26(B) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. The same reads as follows:-

"26B. Resolution of doubts:- If any question arises as to whether an employee is 3 entitled to, or required to become, or continue as, a member, or as to the date from which he is so entitled or required to become a member, the same shall be referred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who shall decide the same:

Provided that both the employer and the employee shall be heard before passing any order in the matter."

5. Admittedly, both the employer and employee have not been heard before the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from an infraction of law. The same cannot be sustained. Hence, without going into the merits of the petition, in view of the fact that para 26(B) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 has been violated, the impugned order No.KN/MN/SRO/CKR/RC/362/2010 dated 12.07.2010 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, at Annexure-"A" is set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent for a fresh determination after 4 hearing the employer and employee. All contentions are kept open. Rule made absolute.

SD/-

JUDGE *alb/-.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court