The Unit Run Canteen vs The Office Of The Regional Provident ... on 14 December, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Unit Run Canteen vs The Office Of The Regional Provident ... on 14 December, 2018

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                          1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO. 48723 OF 2018 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:

THE UNIT RUN CANTEEN
C/O HEAD QUARTERS
MADRAS SAPPERS INSTITUTE
MADRAS ENGINEER GROUP AND CENTRE
SHIVAN CHETTY GARDEN POST
BANGALORE-560 042
REPRESENTED BY COLONEL BSV BABU
                                      ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHMURTHY K M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

  1. THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
     REGIONAL OFFICE
     BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN
     NO.13, P O BOX NO.2584
     RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 025

  2. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
     BD-IX COMPLIANCE WING
     REGIONAL OFFICE EPF ORGANIZATION
     BAVISYANIDHI BHAVAN
     NO.13, PO BOSX NO.2584
     RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 025

  3. THE ASSISTANT PF COMMISSIONER
     THE RECOVERY WING
     REGIONAL OFFICE EPF
     ORGANIZATION
     BAVISYANIDHI BHAVAN
     NO.13, P O BOX NO.2584
     RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 025
                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE)
                               2

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.10.2015 UNDER SECTION
14 B OF THE EPF AND MP ACT 1952 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED
BY R-1.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINMARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                      ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, in unison submit that the fact matrix of this case approximates to the one in the cognate W.P.No.9068/2018 and connected matters disposed off by this Court vide judgment dated 13.06.2018 and therefore this matter too be accordingly disposed of.

2. A cursory look at the pleadings of the parties in juxtaposition with the judgment aforesaid justifies the submission made at the Bar. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment at para 4 has observed as under:

"4. As already taken note, this Court had granted the interim order against recovery pursuant to the orders impugned in these petitions, which are also assailed in the appeals. The condition as imposed by this Court to deposit the 25% of the amount has been complied. If that be the position, the benefit as extended by this Court will have to continue in favour of the petitioner till the 3 appeals are considered and disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal.

Accordingly, the interim order granted by this Court on 07.03.2018 is extended till the appeals filed by the petitioner is considered and disposed of on its merits".

In view of the above, this writ petition also stands accordingly disposed of subject to the rider that the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the amount payable under the impugned orders, with the jurisdictional office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, within four weeks, who shall hold it subject to the outcome of the appeal of the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE Snb/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court