Karnataka High Court
M/S Gericke Vacum Pumps Private Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 24 October, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION Nos13077 & 13078 /2013 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
M/s.GERICKE VACUM PUMPS
PRIVATE LTD.,
A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956,
having its Registered Office
Now No.427/C, Hebbal Industrial Area
Mysore-570 016.
Represented by its Authorised
Representative Mr.Gaurav Toshriwal ...Petitioner
(By Sri.Joshua.H.Samuel, Adv.,)
AND:
1. The Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner,
Office of the Provident Fund
Organisation,
Sub-Regional Office, No.108-128.
Gayathripuram, II Stage,
Mysore-570 019.
2. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner,
Office of the Provident Fund
2
Organisation,
Sub-Regional Office,
No.108-128, Gayathripuram, II Stage,
Mysore-570 019. ...Respondents
(By Sri.Harikrishna.S.Holla, Adv.,)
*******
These Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution praying to quash the order
No.KN/PF/SRO/Mys/Enf/470/2012 dated 31-7-2012 and
the order No.KN/PF/SRO/Mys/Enf/1279/2012-13 dated 13-
12-2012 passed by the first respondent vide Annexures-M
and S respectively as being illegal, arbitrary, null and void,
without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of the EPF
Act.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, as per Annexure-A.
2. The object of the petitioner company is to carry on business as manufacturers, producers, processors, inventors, designers, assemblers, repairers, converters, importers, exporters, dealers, intenders, packers, movers, preservers, stockists, agents, merchants, distributors, consignors, jobbers, brokers, concessionaires, in all kinds of industrial or 3 domestic vaccum pumps, air compressor control systems, equipments for efficient functioning of compressor and vaccum systems, etc., The petitioner started manufacturing activity since 1-4-2012. The petitioner was allotted a Foreign Company Registration number by the Government of Karnataka on 6-2-2012. The petitioner company was also registered under the VAT Act.
3. The petitioner made an application to the ESIC for allotment of new code number to the petitioner. The ESIC allotted new code number to the petitioner. The petitioner was also allotted import and export code number. The petitioner submitted the application to the first respondent requesting to allot a new PF code number. The first respondent without considering the application refused to allot new PF code number. The petitioner made representation dated 13-8-2012. The first respondent issued a letter dated 25-9-2012 informing that there were no establishments either M/s.Techvac Engineering Pvt. Ltd., or 4 M/s.Gericke Vacum Pumps Private Ltd., The petitioner clarified the position through communication dated 4-10-2012.
4. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents 1 and 2 to allot new PF Code number. Since the petitioner did not get reply or personal hearing, the petitioner sent a letter dated 10-11-2012 requesting him to allot him a new code number. The respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 20-11-2012 directing the petitioner to comply under PF code number KN/MYUS/36315 which in fact is the code number of M/s.Techvac Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Thereafter, the first respondent issued a letter dated 13-12-2012 stating that the petitioner has taken over M/s.Techvac Engineering Pvt.Ltd. on long term lease for the period of more than 60 months and the PF Act is continued to be applicable under Section 17B of the EPF Act and proposed to determine the amount due for the period from December 2011 to 30th November 2012 and also applicability of the EPF Act to the petitioner. 5 The petitioner was directed to submit all the records as per Annexure-S. The enquiry is still pending. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of Annexures-M and S.
5. The respondents have filed statement of objections contending that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is not a separate entity. A new code number cannot be allotted unless the petitioner establishes it is a separate entity. When the enquiry is pending, the petitioner has approached this Court. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a separate entity and the first respondent in spite of repeated requests has not allotted new PF code number. The enquiry has been initiated unnecessarily. M/s.Techvac Engineering Pvt.Ltd. has given no objection to allot new PF code number.
6
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not a separate entity. Therefore, an enquiry has been initiated. Instead of participating in the enquiry, the petitioner has approached to this Court.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is relevant to note, the petitioner claims that it is a separate entity and it has nothing to do with M/s.Techvac Engineering Pvt. Ltd., However, the first respondent wants to know whether the petitioner is a separate entity or part of M/s.Techvac Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Therefore, an inquiry has been initiated. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry and submitted all documents. The first respondent should have considered the matter and passed appropriate orders. But, so far no orders have been passed. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry within eight weeks and pass appropriate orders. 7
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has deposited the amount. That will be subject to the order that is going to be passed by the first respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
NT/-