M/S Mascon Global Ltd vs The Regional Pf Commissioner-Ii on 31 August, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Mascon Global Ltd vs The Regional Pf Commissioner-Ii on 31 August, 2012

Bench: Subhash B Adi

                                          WP No.32600/2012

                                 1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                            BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

           WRIT PETITION NO.32600 OF 2012 (L-PF)

BETWEEN:

M/S MASCON GLOBAL LTD
# 59/2, 100 FT RING ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560070,
RETPD. BY MR. ACHAL S MOUDGAL,
SENIOR TECHNICAL MANAGER                    ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K R ANAND, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER-II
   EMPLOYEES" PROVIDENT FUND
   ORGANIZATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE,
   # 570, RAJARAJESWARI REGENCY,
   26TH CORSS, IDEAL HOME COOPERTIVE SOCIETY
   LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
   BANGALORE - 560098

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
   IDBI BANK LTD., IDBI HOUSE,
   # 58, MISSION ROAD,
   BANGALORE - 560027                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SUMANGALA A.SWAMY, ADV.)
                                 ---

     This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature
of certiorari quashing the impugned order vide Annex-B
dtd.22.8.12 passed by R1 and etc.
                                           WP No.32600/2012

                              2

     This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:-

                          ORDER

Smt.Sumangala A.Swamy, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. Since the relief sought for is only against respondent No.1, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

2. The petitioner has called in question Annexure-B, an attachment order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation inter-alia attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.50,81,426/- as arrears of provident fund interest and damages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the main order itself is passed on 30.7.2012. The petitioner has got 60 days to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. However, within 30 days, an attachment order is issued and even to enable the petitioner to file an appeal at Delhi, it requires reasonable time. In the meanwhile, attachment order has been issued preventing the petitioner even from disbursing the salary.

WP No.32600/2012

4. Since there is a statutory period of 60 days for filing the appeal, the organisation should have withheld itself till atleast till the expiry of the 60 days. Nevertheless, having regard to the circumstances, I find that the petitioner could be permitted to file an appeal in a reasonable time. In the meanwhile, interim order may be granted. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER Petition is partly allowed. Petitioner is at liberty to file statutory appeal before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. In the meanwhile, operation of Annexure-B is stayed for a period of six weeks from today.

5. Smt.Sumangala A.Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is permitted to file vakalath within two weeks.

Sd/-

JUDGE RV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court