Karnataka High Court
M/S Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 30 March, 2011
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
a IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD & NDRA KUN SHYLE F cad +¥ % THE HON''BLE MR JUSTICE D BES € + BETWEEN AND i AX DOrLs, 7 ai! per Ven ety rr ar PY Co rrisseoner- lly i fn 4.00- AO: SSHorer is Sao oe one get ne ~~ ie _, oe) per Rorasmess ati Nat bad gem ior i oe i Rat ue ah oeroare. oF ly og Cf} Dharwad and that is how the matter is sted for preliminary hearing in this Bench. 4. The matter had been listed for preliminary hearing on' 28.03.2011) and as there was no representation. for the' petitioner, it had been passed.over and it was directed ie Be listed again on the next day. On 29.03 2017 also as there was no representation, for the. pe was Called, it was yet again di 3. Wher the-rmatter is-called there is no improvement in ise représentation for the petitioner i have looked into the writ petition papers and perused the orders at Annexure H and 'KK, as also -petition pleadings and the grounds urged in tne writ petitioner had once earlier vapproached this Court by fling a writ petition no. re o See eR EE af te ek me yt yh ey et i, ee ora YF @NG a copy of tne order dated 2S.OG 2 "pe comisidered and rectified, SoWFit petition acceptir 6 passed on this writ petition by this Court which was quashing the order dated 16/27.11.2006 passed by, the COMIN ui Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ei a ee Sen eel ee ee bee whe gay SE after issue of notice and that.-again for Guiasning hte quantification of the provident fund, dues payable 'by 'the petitioner im a sum of © 347.481 /- as per the order passed alternative remedy of appeal u/S 7-1 6f the Act and on the submission of learned counsel who had appeared for the petitioner to. the. effect that there were some arithmetical ot clerical mistakes in contribution and on the consession made by the | BY we ¥ < Es counsel appearing for the respondent that if it was or clerical mistake, then if a representation is made to this L -éect-by the petitioner, before the autho rity the same will and therefore disposed of the of tne jearned i Md a" -
fi roel 5 tf se
--
ra ie mS A en i ned ~ CX Da ree £ counsel appearing for the petitioner, though a representation Nad already made direetisg the authority to pass orders on the representation after gwine opportunities, etc. a 8, While this is the backeround, ft is nob. clear as to whether the petitioner had pursued the matter further with i the authorities subsequent tothe orders passed by this Court. But Annexure-F.intimation from the office of the Employees' (Providenr .Fund- Oréanisation. Bellary, néral Manager, M/s Sri vakumar, mt : an Lot ¢ a " + ~~ oo : a .
oye "oy n re ee ee a a ee On ee Abe oy hn i a rn Booey pe LIVLGPa SW emily i Were MUSEROEES, No. SY ,oo.¥. LOolony, Near , . - e Kumaraswamy Temple, Bellary, does indicate that en quiry af the Act Wes 21.02.2008 ion of the petitioner was fixed to be on 2 of the petitioner to participate, a decision Ul be taken, etc, on the premise that the petitioner has wothing more to add, * anRexure-F calling upon the petitioner to remit a sum of g. It iS petilioner's version that petitioner had as per his presentation dated 21.02.2006 claimed that the-provident fund dues for the year 2003-04 was nil and for the year 2004-05 was a sum of © 4.07.620/- as per the balance:
sheet prepared by the internal auditors of the organisauon and requested the Assistant Previdens F und. Comriissionér to issue necessary revised orders uf S.7-A, ete. ~ IO. itis not very clear-from-the petition averments as to coe ° . OS i . © in what manner the pectioner has pursued the matter oncden is: "but :has averred that the
--
va "att and has -given "a sudden shock to the petitioner commumeating the order dated O7.10.2010, copy at oo C2AZ4a8i/. ete, and aiso apprising that separate woe he - ee oy PEE TPE eye Aor Af eben Ane pe omy gee oe ive tye _dameges ufs (QO and 14 B ofthe Act respectively. 9 ll. tf is thereafter rhat the petitioner rade his one more y lukewarm attempt to seek review of this devermination Fanae order at Annexure-H and has jumped into this Court, by filing the present writ petition under Articles 22¢ sf the Constitution of india: seékir ie for. eve chine Oo cre -OVESTITLILIOT) O17 Pichchy. feckin Se POP CQLSaAS She Annesxure-fH and i.
12. It is obvious that in the firstunstance petitioner lacks bonafides. Writ. petition. 1S only @ritse for avoiding the pavment and if one + should {.leok At the fistery of this tigation stertig, fromm: the year "2006, if becomes obvious payment being made but 1s only indulging in dispute on this.or that pretext or such other aspects. But has never shor wh bonafides by c laiming that the amount has been "13. Provident Fund Act is a social welfare legislation, an H attempt by the legislature to provide some security to the Se i4. Writ petitioner-emplover is engaged in the activity of export of mineral, obviously a profitable activin. and employing large work force.
1S. [tis the social responsibiligy of the employer to teke. care of its employees and its omy because the emplovers were not responsible to ensure security. and protection to their employees. legislature has intervened to provide for such relief and making. provident. fund contribution compulsory both by the emplever arid the employee. The are for the period 2003-04 ard | Annexure-H it iS véryv clear that petitioner is a person who has onis.spurned good number of opportunities given to the petitioner for-appearing before the authority and to present asthe petitioner or its representative have fallecd on 16.11.2008, 05.02.2010 and again on O05. 05'2010 and in the'absence'of any co-opefatich even fot garticipation and providing petitioner's version to the Commissioner, the Commissioner who was to direct the ement Officer to submit a report and .che-version "gs nothing more to say except be--his OF.11. 20060, etc. (Annexure B to tire writ pelitian}.
16. Sec. 7B of the Act while does provide for seeking x.
6 review of the orders pe + and reads as under:
under SECON FF:
O13. Reviewoo!l orders passes eq Ov an order made under
i) An person:
PAL but from which oo ed | POOP TPES AAOL, important matter or evidence which, after the ce Was mot within F fepanyge rad pPpaes edits:
exercise of due dil Koowledge or could net be produced by Le lime when the order was made, or on 2UMt OF some mistake or errar apparen 'the face of the r cord or for ary other ,oesures fo obtain a review of ded that such officer may also on Pas O4erL motion review Aj SUL) POU (4} shall be filed in such form and.rmrianner.
writhyie eer lea gi ey ge ame ay be epecitie bogey og Phas WHAT SUCH lite as may be specified. ini Scheme, Where it appears to the Gieer r&e sulficient ground for & review >-heé shall reject the apolicatior::
Where cr ts of opinion appli fabion for review should ig@tant the same: -
cation: shall be orar withGut orevious notice to all tk before him to ene and be heard in support of the order in "respect of which a review is applied for, Hication snall be vranted on Set eel o a 'Q oat ool veal FYE L Ler Or splicart alleges Wes Mol witron his knowledve or flys or even fo e was made, without prog: ol such allegation.
order passed under review as if tne-order passed by him under section 7A.
17. The review is only in a Situation when there is no appeal provided against rhe. orders sought to be reviewed and in the preséiit case the, order being one passed u/S 7A . ee LL of the Acte Law:=dees.nrovide for filling an appeal to the Tripura rot tenable. in terms.of s The resporidents have also noticed that the review petition ponte also motin the prescribed format, etc. if is obvious that ro review Hes but 4 i "ebm the petitioner is only beating about the busn anc to posrpome tne vlorcement om one pretext or ae Rok & has also abused the process of this more effec two occasions the tardy manner in which che petitioner has prosecuted this petition is only a mirror held to the manner in which the petitioner is seeking the relief om. this and the interference is inevitable, ¢ the: petitioner. has. lies bonahdes, is not serious about his ctforts, butaitus- only-an ran Ned weet «et ot Let on 6p & me an ch ae _ Mawel =
-- Ta mt oo of bt ht tm we a a 4 q oy me, mt a
--
fon st of ~ ~ sot wood ~ ae bend oe, the extraordinary jurisdiction should be exercised by the Hieh Court wherever public aut 'ho oY ities S misuse and abuse "ouvieuimige the citizens and when or whitnsical action.
public authori nave even indulged rn lavourism, and in such situations the ciigzen has a right to complain when his rig ~ constitutional-are violated or denied and undoubtedly can ce the terit.jurisdiction for relief.
"a, Alte rnative remedies are considered to be riormally 2 five rérmiedy, particularly, if tis in the nature of m, ¥ th oo as es Promina Faas if fat ee et read oe ?
, 7 "
De€Al and writ AG, LAY situations when persons having a statutory defence of appeal do not avail statutory remedies, but jump anco the on ey Cours. Remedy of appeal u/S 7-1 of the. Act olsic bi is within the knowledge of the writ-petitioner ever'since. the -- year 2006 bur the petitioner is only wasting time without for the second time in svrit jurrediction! itiorper has left me with no choice but tovlook into the-writ peution papers mysell and pass orderg.on tre merits of the petition and above ts the position or. suet erefore this writ petitioner for mususing and abusing the process of this Court anc. showing a no care attitude in not prosecuting disused the process of tis a s 8 16 judicial time to be apportioned amon be therefore not only should eq against in contemp ay he has placed. before th
23. Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of % SO.G00/- on the petitioner. Cost to pe dle posites ce. before. this Court within four weeks frorn roday,.fanines which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate for this ammount m favour of ices Conrmittee to enabie the amount as though it is a decree who, approach this Bench of the High court jor reh istrar General of this Court iMonal Reg fo issue-conlermpt moce to near-Kumaraswamy temple, Club road. Geliary, ae lp, person amounts to committing criminal contempt within the scope of Sec. 2icjni of the Conternpt of Court Act, 1O7 1.
29. Not merely this, w learned member of the bar by natne. Mr. i Kulkarni, interrupted the dictation eri enquired as Lo for whom adjournment by one we he is appearing, in which e. ete. he apologized and ¢ withdrew subrnitting that. he is to "appear in the next miatler.
Fi
26. (tis suomitiéd atthe bar that all this confusion is because there. 1s. no.
af learned members of the bar coming to Know which case is going on mm the Court in the c abserce of-any display system hitherto in the Circuit Bench "summoned to the Court hall to ascertain as to why a CiSpiay SYSLEIM 1S Mot pul im piace so far which ij only for the litigants but also for the learned members of the bar to organize their work and to note which matter is
26. sr Ros. Patil, Additional Registrar General fias stated. that some arrangements have been madeorecently in this direction but the contractor toavhom the work is entrusted and who was required. ft. p end of this month, has.not-even, began thie work and said to be for the reasor thar tie contractof is mot able to equip iiself with the monitors from his supplier, ete.
29. These are - f@xcuses and reflects the poor manner in Which the resistry of this Court functions. The work of fhe rheh Court is to functioning on the & luside anc the administrative work including the ify s8 16 Support the function of the High Court on the a
30. Unfortunately im recent times the administration aspect of the High Court, has assumed more, mmportance than the functioning on the judicial side and. whenever tne work on the judicial side suffers,the victims ure the poor litigants for whose beneht the Constitution has provided the judicial system. Courts Starting fromm the District judiciary right up to the Supreme Court, are.meant io. subserve the igany sections of the community. people and in particular ii Gi. Unfortunar this aspect is fost sight of and the interest of the litigents is. the Jast criteria in all judicial eel eS wed ances and OL snd in -confe:
oroblems.of judierary. "particularly in the backeround of I : J . f 2 & large pendency.of cases are discussed, time and again. the system.
nig this aspect to the 20 administrative side for necessary corrections and implementation, S34 Sri ROS. Patil is also directec f 1 to erfsure thatthe:
display system is put in place at the eurliest and if need be. get by bringing this to the notice.of the Registrar. General at the principal Bench, who, in turn ar apprise the Chief Justice and a fax message to this effect. may. be. sent. Ordered accorcdtii