IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 15695 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
GEHANA GOLD PALACE PVT LTD
16/501M, MONTANA ESTATE, PAINGOTTUPURAM,
PERINGOLAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 571,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS,
AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
GEHANA GOLD PALACE PVT LTD,
DOOR NO.SBP VI/1093, MAIN ROAD,
SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673 592,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AHAMMED BASHEER M.P
BY ADVS.
E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
SHILPI M.LAL
RESPONDENT:
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN,
P.B.BHAWAN, P.B.NO.1806,
ERANHIPALAM P.O., CALICUT-673 006
BY ADV ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15695 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that in a proceedings initiated under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which culminated in 2012 there were about 55 employees. The practice of allotment of Unified Account Number started only in 2015 and by that time 43 employees were already there. Petitioner had been requesting the respondent authorities to supply the Unified Account Number so that the amount could be deposited in the respective accounts but the same has been rejected on the ground that they do not have. But during the interregnum, notice under Section 8F had been initiated whereby the bank account of the petitioner has been ordered to be attached.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that nothing prevented the petitioner to deposit the amount by way of cheque to the concerned department for disbursement to the employees. Thus the petitioner had been in remiss in not complying with the proceedings undertaken under Section 7A of the Act.
WP(C) NO. 15695 OF 2022 3
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
The contribution/liability of the petitioner towards the contribution of the employees is about Rs.2,58,000/- and odd amount. There is no direction in writing by the Employees Provident Fund office to deposit the amount in the Unified Account Number started in 2015. The appropriate remedy in recourse for the petitioner was to make the payment in a lump sum to the department and the department would further disburse it on the basis of the inspection record made at relevant point of time. Petitioner is directed to deposit the amount within a period of one week from today. Till such time the attachment order shall remain under stay and thereafter in case of non-deposit, the order of stay will be vacated and respondent shall be at liberty realise the outstanding amount in accordance with law.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak WP(C) NO. 15695 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15695/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2013 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL (WITHOUT ITS ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 03.01.2014 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2019 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.10.2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.02.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 04.03.2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 21.04.2022