G4S Security Services (India) Pvt Ltd vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 14 January, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

G4S Security Services (India) Pvt Ltd vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 14 January, 2011

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

iu

THES 'NIP. IS FILED UNDER ARTECLEES 226 8:  OF
THIE', CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA Wf'I'}"i A PRAYER TO QLERSIII
'I'HE ORI3E*-ZR D'E'.2,4.9.2008 PASSED BY THE R.I£{31ONfs,L

PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I BANGALORE" 1:I,N
PROCEEDINGS DT. 24.9.08 ORDERING 7:32. I«:N'Q'DIIR*;:_T I.
UNDER THE RROVIDENT FUND ACT AT ANN~:R.fVQUAS}'I.. 
THE ORDER D1:9_eIO9 PASSED Iggy T3513?"-R.EC}IC3'NAL 
PROVIDENT EUND COMMISSIONEZR " 'P I ITAIIIO-_ALO_RE--w = IN:
'I?ROCEi{i:I}ENG AIO.4?EE cOI\IvERTIfNO'AA..  = jv:Ii_<:E:,}A
PROCEEDING TO 8 7C(b) PROCEEDINL; AT ANN~'S.. Qt;A:~:sH'<_
THE ORDER DT.2.7._I0 PASSED "Ev TI-TE jR.F:;GIO_NAL _ 
PROVIDENT FUND COMMESSvIO1\E'I£R'IE__ BIAROALORE IN '

PROCEEING NO.KN/14766 '€:ONVERT*1I\fzO" A5 7'C[b)
PROCEEDING TO A TE. PROD-EED-INDIA AT AI~:AIxI2" QUASH
THE ORDER DT.I5.I;_'I~O :PAssED_ .BI:'_ THE) REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND CO'IJI2»IIssIVk:)I}IERAA.f_ I,' BANGALORE IN
PROCEEDING NOKN/14766 .RE.IEcTIN_U_  PETITIONER'S
APPLICATION D'_I"1__5. 1 1510' A': A'I~I.I$:UAU'.. DIRECT THAT THE
ACTION OF ;"THE' RESFC}ND'ENT--."=IN_.f INITIATING THE
SECTION '714ENQI.JI~Ry__'D§IDERfT'THE PROVIDENT FUND

ACT. 3: so ALSO ;;:ON*JER'*E'AIQ"'THI<; ENQUIRY INTO A ?C[B]
ENQUIR")t"f3:.  E'R.g.DIRY-. Is 'DAD' IN LAW. DIRECT THAT
THE REsEOI\§DiENT"'I,s PRECLUDED EROM INITIATING ANY
FURTHER" ACTIO.1:\£'gAGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THIS
REGARD', " '   

T.*"1."I?;is pé{iiiOI.T'COTni.Dg On for PTe1:imi:I1aI"y he8.3"iI1.g *::h.is

 , ' 6213?,' 5th(f: xCOU.1'Y. rs tOi10w'in_g:»

ORDER

pet.it.iOn ihe pstitiorler.' l;1.a,s pTay€d for a Wrii in the If;£iJL11n1.':'€A0f cert;iO1.'ari to quash the Order dt.24.9.2()O8 "passedgbﬁz the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ai ~,_EaU€§:€i1OF€ as per ATTDEXIIIOR. Order c§t..9.6.2()O9 as per f_;..2 AnI1eX.u.re--S, order Cit. 2.7.2010 as per Anr1exu.re~'1' and_-order di. 15.1 LZOIO 2159 per' Am1eXu.1'e--U and for other 1'e1i(:fé.'.--V

2. The respondents by o1'<:ier Cit. 22.2.9.0' H Orréer direci,i.I1g the petitioner to pg1}?ipr0*z'idef1£'. fuiiiitii'4d1ies:}f0Vi-. the period from 1.11199} to oc:_o2§'e:

being aggrieved by the ordeii aljpeal " 0 before the Appeilate 'rThe_ AI.)'peE--l.aieV_.Efribunal allowed the appeal ci€;.22.2.1999 . Against this 01'cie1"-- ef ﬁthe respondent approached. and the same came 6.2000 and the ma1.f:er was re'1-.:_1an_ded This order of the learned Singie judge' d:;;.1."*21..'e..?;{;Q;0'< "game to be affimied by the 1'f)ivisjn;1 I-3e014§C}1_:V<)§'.i.}1isA"edi,ii;t in WA i\Io.84L38/2000 Vide order A' "F'u.171_h.er the Supreme Court: in SLP disposed on 23.7.2004 <:on_fi_rm.ed me order I .S_i}11g1e Judge and the Division Bench of this Ceuii W*i'Lh_éi1"iKG'DS€I'VaT.iOI1 that they shail decide the matter \;&-rithoute 'E:'eir1g inﬂuenced by the 0bse1"v'z-1£',iQ11s made in the ' .fr.cirde3;f passed by {hie Couzn. '1'hereai"*'€er the Assisiani g'-....

:

f/' Provident Fund Commissioner by his order cit. 31.82(){)'? as founé at Annexu:*e~«{3-, concluded the enquiry wiih a Egberty to reassess the dues on receipt of necessary g'ui<:1e1i.:1es X Clarifications / instructions on the of . provident fund contribution. Thereaﬁer the.'res;:\.::(:}:2d£:V1."1f;* issued a notice as per AnneXure~R the assessment. In response.»oio.___Anne::;ife~R,athe' vpetitij§3ne1' _ entered appearance before oifvgajeotions. requested for certain '.A1 i1:«..§%;e'=p;'ocee'o1i1ogs before the respondent inter1m_V_o;f'dAer Annexurefl' and Annexure'>{J""§I§dpu§nec1 came to be passeclg "

3. VV._£4X'1"*:er' matter by this court: in WP No.é1p'8E33/9§,"»WA""No'.6438/2000 and the order of the ,.¢.,Vl;3L;v]';5'1'6.3r1:Ey'%é:' oegrt in%sLP No.12318/2004, the respondent as per Anr1exur"e-G dt.3E.8.2GO?. in this orkier a'§..1*«J;7rj;e§§ure~G, iiberty is reserved to the responcient to reopeii v1;__h'e assessment after securing necessary ciarifiication. .i_S:"'?:hereaiter the impugned notice at Annexure~R came to K issued. The order at Annex-ure»«G has? become ﬁnai and it UN is biI1di13g on the parties. The preserlt notice at Annexure-R is the Out. Come o'f1iber'a':y reserved in the OI'd€3' at A:'1_Vi1e_:{{ufe;~ G. Therefore, I decline to accept the c<3z1'te_:"1£~%::>11:

learned eounsei for the petiti0ne1f__t»ha.: A1111eXi,iré;P{.'is An0!_ V n1a:inta.ir1ab1e.

4. The impugned ordeissnaﬁ. 1'~\11f"1'f'3X{I1.'€~S-., A;n'n.exr_a:re~T 2 L and Armexure»U are 3}} ini,c:_1_f_ifx;.V_ waders.' passed? by the respondent in the pr0ceed:i'ngs--_before"hin§}'s if for any reason, the impugned orders ha d--ea:LfIsed. p:riej'Q1.'dic'é' fgﬁthe petitioners, then they arfeiat ::71"be1'i;y"'t0€q'ﬁ.es{i.0r;"{he"'sa.n1e at the time of qL1ash.i:1'g"'si:h_e;'T;finé{Ef:.;dispessl rjf""tue§ proceedings before the 3'esp0nt1e:ni'., Sit. Téariled Sender Counse} for the ....,.¢_,pe'i-:ﬁ:§:bn_er 'r:pnt.efids "" "that the notice at Anne-xu're«R dt. .'{'<:x1jV "3jeo'pen1ng the case is bereft of reasons, grmiixds ai1tifie<:ess211*y details. If that is so, it is always open for tbe"*peti1,1'oner to file objeciions and rai.s<~: all these <:dz'ir--er11io'r1s before the respo11der1t':. If such contentions are ijaised by the petitioners, then it is obiigaiory on the part of (3 the respondem. to C()]".1Sid{;'l" the sazrue and pass apprQp__ri2zi'.e cwders in acc:01'da11«::e~:~ with law.

With the abzwe observations. the w1~i_t 7pe,',ji'}.di1~ ' ciisposed ofw1't'hoL1i: refe1'ence to the_;r@$.pQnd_ér:t.V' " "

gzfjﬁés % P58

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court