Changanacherry Co-Operative ... vs Assistant Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 70 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)


PETITIONER:

               CHANGANACHERRY CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING
               SOCIETY LTD.NO.K/364, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

               BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
               EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
               SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ADITYA SABARI TOWER,
               POST OFFICE ROAD, THIRUNAKARA, KOTTAYAM - 1.

      2        ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
               FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUNAKARA,
               KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

               SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP-SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

                                       2


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of January 2021

The Changanacherry Co-operative Rubber Marketing

Society Limited has approached this Court impugning Ext.P6

Inspection Report settled by the Enforcement Officer of the

Provident Fund Organisation, Kottayam and they allege that

the contents thereof and the demand made therein are both

untenable and without basis.

2. Sri.Mathew Sebastian, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, makes several assertions and impels various

contentions in opposition to Ext.P6, but primarily that the

petitioner is employing only two persons at the moment.

Sri.Mathew Sebastian, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set

aside.

3. In response, the learned standing counsel for the

Provident Fund Organisaton, Sri.Joy Thattil Itoop, submitted

that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely,

since they can always file their objections to Ext.P6, which will

then be considered by the competent Authority of the

Organisation, leading to an enquiry under Section 7-A of the

Employees' Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Sri.Joy Thattil Itoop, therefore,

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed and that the

petitioner be either directed to pay the amounts as per Ext.P6

or to file their objections to it, if they are so interested.

4. On hearing Sri.Joy Thattil Itoop as above, Sri.Mathew

Sebastian submitted that his client has already preferred

Ext.P7 objections to Ext.P6 Inspection Report and thus prayed

that this Court direct the competent Authority to consider the

same and conduct an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act,

before taking any further action based on the said report.

5. Taking note of the afore submissions and in particular

those made by Sri.Joy Thattil Itoop, that the petitioner's

objection will be considered leading to an enquiry under

Section 7-A of the Act, I order this writ petition and direct the

competent respondent to take up Ext.P7 objections of the

petitioner and consider the same, after conducting the enquriy

under Section 7-A of the Act as per law and after affording

necessary opportunities to the petitioner, culminating in an

appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as is possible,

but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is

completed and the resultant order communicated to the

petitioner, all further action pursuant to Ext.P6 will stand

deferred and will be taken forward only based on the

conclusions in the enquiry to be conducted in terms of this

judgment.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.29078 OF 2020(H)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/6/2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/6/2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8/7/2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/7/2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/1/2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT AND DEMAND OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/11/2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2/12/2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.