Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Coromandel Roller Floor Mills P ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 September, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.981 of 2020
ORDER:-
Challenging the impugned proceedings of respondent No.3 vide letter No.AP/RO/VSP/CC 53/17210/7A/2019/ 5113 dated 23.12.2019 issued under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'EPF Act') received by the petitioner on 01.01.2020, the above writ petition is filed.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner- company was established under the Companies Act, 1956 and the same is being run by appointing employees. The petitioner paid Provident Fund to the employees from 01.12.2015 to 31.11.2018. Thereafter as the company became sick petitioner did not contribute provident fund amounts to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, without considering the situation, by the impugned proceedings, determined Rs.17,51,449/- which is due by the petitioner establishment and directed the petitioner to remit the 2 amount within a period of ten days and failure on the part of the petitioner to remit the amount, will make the petitioner liable to pay interest under Section 7(Q) and damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act. It was also indicated that petitioner shall also be liable for punishment under Sections 406/409 of IPC. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri M. Suryanarayna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Balaji, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 passed the impugned order without considering the material on record and without giving any opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the unit became sick and it is not being run, as such petitioner did not pay the amounts for which the impugned proceedings are issued. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition. 3
5. Learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner has effective alternative remedy by way of review under Section 7(B) and 7(C) and appeal under 7(I) of the EPF Act. He would also submit that in view of the effective alternative remedy available under the EPF Act, this writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on orders, dated 02.08.2018 and 16.03.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.25641 of 2018 and 6703 of 2022 respectively, wherein it was held that in view of effective remedy available under the EPF Act, writ petition cannot be entertained. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Admittedly, in the present case, impugned proceedings by respondent No.3 vide letter No.AP/RO/VSP/CC 53/17210/7A/2019/ 5113 dated 23.12.2019 were passed under Section 7A. Against the order of 3rd respondent, petitioner could have availed remedy under 7(B) and 7 (C) of the Act or an appeal under Sec 7(I) of the Act. Respondent No.3 after considering the entire material on record, passed 4 the orders. Thus, writ petitioner, would have availed the opportunity of filing appeal under Section 7(I) of the EPF Act. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain writ petition on merits. According the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.
a) Petitioner is at liberty to file statutory appeal against the orders passed by respondent No.3 under Section 7(I) of the EPF Act before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the appellate authority shall consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.
b) Petitioner is directed to deposit half of the amount covered by the order passed by respondent No.3 under Section 7(A) of the Act, as a condition precedent for entertaining such appeal.
c) It is also made clear that pending consideration of the appeal to be filed within the time stipulated 5 above, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner by the respondent authorities.
d) Pending consideration of the appeal subject to compliance of the above conditions, the order passed by respondent No.3 which is impugned shall remain suspended.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 22.09.2022 ikn 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.981 of 2020 Date : 22.09.2022 ikn