Patna High Court - Orders
M/S Speedcrafts Limited vs The Employees Provident Fund & Ors on 22 March, 2013
Author: Shailesh Kumar Sinha
Bench: Shailesh Kumar Sinha
Patna High Court CWJC No.23725 of 2012 (6) dt.22-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23725 of 2012
======================================================
M/S Speedcrafts Limited Layak Enclaves, Sahay Nagar, Patna-801506, A
Company Incorporated Under Indian Companies Act 1956, Through Its
Director (Works)Shyam Sunder Khadria , S/O Late P.R.Khadria, R/O
Layak Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, 'R' Block,
Road No.6, Bihar, Patna-800001
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii, the Employees Provident
Fund Organization Regional Office 'R' Block, Road No.6, Patna-800001
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA
C.A.V. ORDER
6 22-03-2013Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioner is against recovery of Rs. 37,858/- being the amount of damages and interests for not paying the contributions deducted from the wages of the employees by the petitioner with the respondents-Corporation within the statutory period of time prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') from the amount standing in the credit of the petitioner with the H.D.F.C. Bank vide letter no. 7342 dated 20th September, 2012 (Annexure-1).
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the beginning of hearing of the case submitted that petitioner is confining his grievances with respect to the mode of recovery of the amount mentioned in the order dated 19th September, 2012 Patna High Court CWJC No.23725 of 2012 (6) dt.22-03-2013 under section 14B of the Act with interest vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. With regard to the grievance with respect to recovery, it is submitted that the respondent- were required in law to send a notice to Bank under the provisions of sub- section (3) of section 8(F) of the Act, and thereafter only could have proceeded for recovery, and as such, the action of the respondent for recovery is not correct in law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that notwithstanding the provision for the issue of certificate to the recovery officer for recovery of the dues under section 8B of the Act, the other statutory modes for recovery prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 8(F) of the Act is equally available in law. It is further submitted that on perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 8(F) of the Act, it would appear that the respondents were competent in law to adopt any one or more of the modes provided under section 8(F) of the Act. Learned counsel submits that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 8(F) the department is competent in law to take steps for recovery of the dues asking any person from whom any amount is payable to the employer. In this particular case from the outstanding amount to the credit of the petitioner available with the Bank the respondent-Provident Fund Department issued the order requiring the Bank to remit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 37,858/- which in law to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Organization. The Bank on Patna High Court CWJC No.23725 of 2012 (6) dt.22-03-2013 receipt of same remitted the amount after deducting from the account of the petitioner, and as such, the action taken by the respondents is as per law.
Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties, it would appear that the controversy is with regard to the mode of recovery adopted by the respondent-Organization. The parties are not in dispute that other modes of recovery are prescribed under the provisions of Section 8(F) of the Act. On perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 8(F) of the Act, it would appear that the respondent-Organization may recover the amount by any one or more (emphasis supplied) of the modes provided in the section. The respondents having adopted the mode prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 8(F) of the Act cannot be held to be not in consonance with law and since the respondent-Organization had adopted the amount prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 8(F) of the Act it was not required to proceed for recovery under sub-section (3) of section 8F of the Act.
In view of the reasons and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J) Manish/-