Kerala High Court
Madhu S.Nair vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 17 March, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/8TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 8818 of 2008 (Y)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
MADHU S.NAIR,MANHATTON,
MELATHAMPANOOR,
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SRI.DIPU.R
SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
SRI.K.S.HARIDAS
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NEEDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1016,
PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. N.SATHEESAN, RECOVERY OFFICER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NEEDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1016,
PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.
SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 30-10-2013 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.686 OF 2007, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.8818/2008 (Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/07/1996 GRANTING COVERAGE UNDER
SECTION 1 (4) OF THE ACT.
P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/11/1997 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 17/07/98 FOR THE PERIOD FROM
6/97 TO 2/98.
P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTGD. 21/10/99 COVERING THE PERIOD
FROM 3/98 TO 12/98.
P5: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.KR/ENGL(7) COV.ALLIED/97 DTD.9/5/1997.
P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DTD. 17/10/2003
IN CRL.M.C.NO.1573/2001.
P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DTD. 28/02/2006
IN CRL.M.C.NO.1130/2001.
P8: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DTD.
5/01/2007 IN WPC.NO.686/07.
P8(a): COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DTD.
22/06/2007 IN WPC.NO.686/07.
P9: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 30/11/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KR/12864/RECOVERY/TVM/2008/8554 DTD.
16/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P11: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 1/02/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P12: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KR/12864/RO/RECOVERY/2008/9561 DTD.
21/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
WP(C).No.8818 of 2008-Y
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008.
O R D E R
1.One M/s. Krishna Info Tech Ltd. was covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, voluntarily. Following the voluntary coverage, it is stated that the name of the establishment was changed to M/s.Kerala Info Tech Pvt. Ltd. and later on, different orders were issued on alleged default of contribution. Once an establishment gets covered either voluntarily or by the compulsion of the statute, the consequences follow. The petitioner appears to cling on to the benefits by way of exemptions contained in Ext.P5 circular. As of now, the fact remains that Ext.P4 issued way back in 1999, has apparently concluded certain issues which cannot be re- WP(C)8818/08 -: 2 :- opened. The subsequent judgments of this Court quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner were essentially issued on the ground that payments have already been made.
2.Thereafter, proceedings were taken against the assets of M/s.India Hospital Trust. Stating that, that Trust is an independent establishment and has nothing to do with the establishment in hand, WP(C) 686/2007 was filed by the India Hospital Trust represented by the petitioner's wife. Initially Ext.P8 interlocutory order was issued directing the Corporation Bank to retain an amount of Rs.57,426/- in the account of the India Hospital Trust and allow withdrawal of the balance. It is also directed in Ext.P8 order that payment shall not be passed on to the Recovering Officer, EPF Organization, who was the sole respondent in that writ petition. Ext.P8(a) order was issued on 22-6- 2007 in that writ petition clarifying that the order of stay in favour of the petitioner therein shall not preclude the respondent Recovery Officer WP(C)8818/08 -: 3 :- from proceeding against the other establishments mentioned in the writ petition. Following that, the impugned proceedings have resulted, whereby, among other things, it has been categorically found that the petitioner is a person of means and his financial status is such that he is one who is able and capable of paying the amounts under demand.
3.In the aforesaid circumstances, while admitting this writ petition and ordering it to be tagged along with WP(C).686/2007, there will be an interim order that if the petitioner pays the entire amount covered by the impugned demand within a fortnight from now under protest and without prejudice to his contentions in this writ petition, such payment will be treated as provisional and the impugned order will stand suspended during the pendency of this writ petition. Having regard to the nature of the contentions, it is further ordered that the petitioner will be entitled to reimbursement of the amount that he pays on the basis of this order with interest at the statutory rate, in the event he WP(C)8818/08 -: 4 :- succeeds in this writ petition.
4.Learned standing counsel takes notice for the first respondent.
5.Issuance of notice to the second respondent in his personal capacity is deferred for the time being. Hand over.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Sha/