Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Provident Fund vs M/S. Sangeeth Enterprises on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.636 OF 2013 (L-PF)
IN
W.P.NO.9658 OF 2011 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER
NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
BANGALORE 560025
REPRESENTED BY RPFC-I
R.O. BANGALORE.
2. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN
NO.13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 025.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MRS. NANDITA HALDIPURA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. M/S. SANGEETH ENTERPRISES
REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
2
SRI. K.N. NAVANEETH GUPTA
NO.26/1, SHESHADRI ROAD
BANGALORE-560009.
2. M/S PAI REFRESHMENTS
BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. ASHOK PAI
NO.26/1, SHESHADRI ROAD
BANGALORE-560009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. M. RUDRAIAH, ADV., FOR R1
MR. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADV., FOR R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.9658/11 DATED
19/11/2012.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, has been filed
against an order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the
learned Single Judge by which the writ petition
preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the appellant is the Employees'
Provident Fund Organisation. The respondent No.1
M/s. Sangeeth Enterprises which is a partnership
firm, is covered under the provisions of Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short).
The appellant issued notice to respondent No.1 to
remit the dues and to produce the required
documents. Respondent No.1 did not respond to the
aforesaid notice.
3. Thereupon, an enquiry under Section 7A of
the Act was initiated for determination of dues in
respect of establishments namely Sangeeth Lodge and
Pai Refreshments. After enquiry, dues under the Act
were determined for a period from December 1988 to
August 1999. The respondent preferred an appeal
before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated
25.05.2010, inter alia held that both the
establishments namely Sangeeth Lodge and Pai
Refreshments are different, having different set of
employees and different owners. The order passed by
the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant in a writ
petition which has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge. In the aforesaid factual background,
this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated
that the lodging and restaurant is being run by the
same person. On the other hand, learned counsel for
the respondents has supported the order.
5. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the order passed by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, after giving valid and cogent
reasons, has held that restaurant and lodging are two
different entities run by different owners and cannot
be treated as one unit for the purposes of enforcement
of provisions of the Act. The aforesaid finding is based
on material on record and cannot be said to be
perverse. The aforesaid finding of fact has also been
upheld by the learned Single Judge.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
