Gehana Gold Palace Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Provident Fund ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5596 Ker

                 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. 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

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