Madras High Court
M/S.Sankar Chemical Lime vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 23 February, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1576 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.1576 of 2011
and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
M/s.Sankar Chemical Lime,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
K.S.Raman. ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub-Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
NGO “B” Colony,
Tirunelveli – 627 007.
2.The Enforcement Officer,
Compliance Circle – II,
Sub-Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
NGO “B” Colony,
Tirunelveli – 627 007. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 12.11.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.4522 of 2008
on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam
For R – 1 : Mr.K.Murali Shankar
For R – 2 : No appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A(MD)No.1576 of 2011
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.11.2011
passed in W.P(MD)No.4522 of 2008.
2.Originally, the said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant/writ
petitioner challenging the demand of interest raised in the order
bearing No.TN/TNY/33169/7Q/100020/PDC(1)/2008, dated
28.04.2008, passed by the first respondent along with interest. The
appellant also seems to have challenged the demand of damages by
way of another Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.4523 of 2008. Both the
Writ Petitions viz., W.P(MD)No.4522 of 2008 came to be dismissed and
W.P(MD)No.4523 of 2008 came to be disposed of by common order on
12.11.2011 by the learned Single Judge.
3.While considering the demand notices, though the learned
Single Judge has recorded that the appellant had specifically
mentioned that there was no break-up for the details of the interest
claimed under Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, there was no befitting answer
from the respondent-authorities for the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1576 of 2011
4.No doubt, prior notice need not be given to the employer,
however, he is entitled to for the break-up of the amount, that has
been arrived at, when a demand is made.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also fairly
conceded that the break-up of the amount was not given in the
demand notice. Therefore, he would submit that it would be
appropriate to remit the matter back to the first respondent for fresh
consideration and arrive at the amount of interest payable by the
appellant as per Section 7-Q of the Act.
6.Considering the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side, the matter is remitted back to the first
respondent for fresh consideration and arrive at the amount of interest
payable by the appellant as per Section 7-Q of the Act. The said
exercise shall be completed by the authority within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1576 of 2011
7.With the above direction, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
23.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate
/ litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1576 of 2011
To
1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub-Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
NGO “B” Colony,
Tirunelveli – 627 007.
2.The Enforcement Officer,
Compliance Circle – II,
Sub-Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
NGO “B” Colony,
Tirunelveli – 627 007.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1576 of 2011
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.1576 of 2011
23.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
