Madras High Court
M/S. La Providence Systems vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 24 July, 2020
Author: P.D. Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu
W.P. No. 11694 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.07.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 11694 of 2019
and
W.M.P. No. 11926 of 2019
M/s. LA Providence Systems
Third Floor, No.2, Rajan Street
Parthasarathy Puram, T.Nagar
Chennai – 600 017.
Rep by its Partner
A.Jeyarakash ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I
Employees Provident Fund Organization
37, Royapettah High Road
Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the order bearing
Ref. No. TN/85398/D-25/MAS/PDC-NORTH/2018 dated 24.08.2018 passed by
the respondent under Section 7Q and 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.29,85,709/- as damages and interest for the period from July 2015 to April
2016.
For Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Gupta for M/s. Gupta and Ravi
For Respondent : Mr. V.Sundareswaran, Standing Counsel
1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No. 11694 of 2019
ORDER
(through video conference) Heard M/s. Gupta and Ravi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V.Sundareswaran, Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Respondent by order No. TN/85398/D-25/MAS/PDC-NORTH/2018 dated 24.08.2018 had levied penal damages under Section 14-B with interest under Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the Petitioner, who received the copy of that order on 14.09.2018. The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order under Section 7-I of the Act within a period of 60 days from the date of its receipt in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, before the Appellate Authority, who has been empowered to condone delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 60 days, if sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within that period is made out. However, the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition on 29.03.2019 challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 11694 of 2019 maximum limitation period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020) has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. In view of that legal position, it is not possible to entertain this Writ Petition challenging the order of the First Respondent.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought to justify the invocation of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner before it was passed. On a reading of the impugned order, it is seen that notice dated 02.08.2018 was served on the Petitioner on 06.08.2018, but inspite of 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 11694 of 2019 receipt of that notice, he had not appeared before the Respondent and the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition also does not contain any satisfactory explanation of the Petitioner in that regard. In such circumstances, the Petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead violation of the principles of natural justice, when he has failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing afforded by the Respondent.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
24.07.2020
Maya
Index : Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy by 29.07.2020.
To
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I
Employees Provident Fund Organization
37, Royapettah High Road
Chennai – 600 014.
4/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No. 11694 of 2019
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
Maya
W.P. No. 11694 of 2019
......07.2020
5/5
http://www.judis.nic.in