Karnataka High Court
M.Zafrulla President Bilal Education ... vs The Asst. Provident Fund Anr on 24 April, 2015
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
ON THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
Writ Petition No.83564/2010 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
M. Zafrulla President
Bilal Education Society,
Womans B.Ed. College,
Hyderabad Road,
Bidar.
... Petitioner
(By Smt Hema L. Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Asst. Provident Fund
Commissioner, Employees Provident
Fund Organization,
(Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India)
Sub Regional Office, Aland Road,
Gulbarga - 585 103.
2. Recovery Officer
Employees Provident Fund
2
Organization "Bhavishya Nidni Bhavan",
Aland Road,
Gulbarga - 585 101.
... Respondents
(Sri R.S. Sidhapurkar, Advocate
& Sri R.S. Patil, Advocate - Absent)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash
the order passed the respondent vide its order No:
MN/SRO/GLB/enf/7A/KN/21103/08-09 dated 25.11.2008 at
Annexure-A issued by the respondent No.1 etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' group
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
There was a failure to remit the Provident Fund. Notices were issued. An order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the 'Act') was passed. Consequently a review petition was filed under Section 7B of the said Act. The same was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the 3 writ petition has been filed questioning the order passed under Section 7A of the Act and the order passed by the respondents vide Annexure-H namely a show-cause notice as to why petitioner should not be committed to Civil Prison in execution of the said certificate. She further contends that there has been a violation of the legal rights of the petitioner.
3. On hearing learned counsel, I' am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. On an order being passed under Section 7A of the Act the petitioner in terms of section 7B is entitled to file a review petition. That has been done. The Review petition has been rejected.
4. I find no good ground to interfere with the same. The petitioner has exhausted the remedies available to him in law. It is contended that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Such a contention was raised in the review and the same was considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order. That the petitioner had not remitted provident fund 4 contribution from July 2004 from July 2008. Substantial opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Rs.8,72,941/- was determined. In spite of it the same has not been paid. Time was granted to make payment even that has not been complied. It would therefore appear that the petitioner's only interest is to protract the proceedings and not to make any payment. I find no good ground to interfere with the well considered order.
5. The second prayer is to quash Annexure-H, which is a show-cause notice of warrant of arrest. The same is a consequence to the order passed under Section 7A of the Act. It is consequential order. In view of the non interference with the order passed under Section 7A of the Act necessarily there can be no interference so far as warrant of arrest is concerned. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu