Madras High Court
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S. Sri Nachammai Cotton Mills ... on 2 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5361 of 2021
1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office,
No.1, Lady Doak College Road,
Madurai – 625 002.
2.G.Shaji,
Recovery Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Madurai – 625 002.
Tamil Nadu.
3.V.Sunthan
Enforcement Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Madurai – 625 002.
Tamil Nadu. : Appellants
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
M/s. Sri Nachammai Cotton Mills Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Chettinad – 630 102.
Karaikudi Taluk,
Sivagangai District. : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act,
praying to allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders passed
by the learned Judge in W.P.(MD)No.23645 of 2019 dated
08.11.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.A.John Xavier
For Respondent : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up
for disposal.
2.Heard Mr.A.John Xavier, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam, learned Counsel appearing
for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
3.The appellant organisation is aggrieved by the directions
and observations made by the learned Writ Court in the impugned
order dated 08.11.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.23654 of 2019, whereby the
learned Writ Court has interpreted the provisions of Section 8-B of
the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 ['the Act', for brevity].
4.The learned Counsel for the appellant organisation
submitted that the said finding of the learned Writ Court is
incorrect, since the appellant organisation is entitled to exercise its
powers under Section 8-B on any one or more of the employees
mentioned under the said provisions. It can be by way of
attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property or it
may be by way of arrest of the employer or detention in prison or
by way of appointing a receiver for the management of the movable
or immovable property of the establishment. It is further submitted
that under the said provisions, there is no mention that the
recovery officer shall accede to modes of recovery in an order as
satisfied therein.
5.The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Sobhag Textile
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
Limited Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana
and another reported in 2000 (3) RSJ 178 and the decision of
the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Harish Vs. EPFO, in
L.P.A.No.1746/2010.
6.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
management submitted that the order of arrest could not have
been resorted to without exhausting the other steps provided under
the statute for recovery of the dues. It is further submitted that
after the writ petition was allowed with the observations and
directions, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) cum
Labour Court, Chennai, listed the appeal filed by the respondent
management in EPFA No.397 of 2018 and clarified the interim
order which was passed earlier by rectifying the typographical
error and ordered that the respondent management should deposit
a sum of Rs.1 Lakh, as it was mentioned earlier and the portion of
the order passed by the organisation dated 14.09.2015, was stayed
till the disposal of the appeal and with further direction to the
organisation not to take any steps against the respondent till the
disposal.
7.In the order dated 06.12.2019 of the CGIT, it is seen that no
time limit was fixed for deposit of a sum of Rs.1 Lakh. Therefore, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant organisation
that the respondents have not complied with the conditions
imposed by the CGIT and the benefit of stay will not accrue to
them. However, since the appeal is pending before the CGIT, it will
be appropriate for both the appellant organisation and the
respondent management to agitate all the factual and legal issues
in the pending appeal. However, since the respondent management
has not complied with the order dated 06.12.2019, we are of the
view that the protection granted by the Tribunal cannot inure
endlessly in favour of the management.
8.We also take note of the submission of the learned Counsel
for the appellant organisation with regard to the observations made
by the learned Writ Court interpreting Section 8-B. We are of the
view that since the appeal is pending before the CGIT, it may not be
necessary for the learned Writ Court to decide the issue to Section
8-B of the Act. Therefore, we vacate all the findings rendered by
the learned Writ Court and leave the issues open to be agitated at a
later part of time, as and when the need arises.
9.In the light of the above, the writ appeal is disposed of, by
directing the respondent management to deposit a sum of Rs.1
Lakh on or before 26.07.2021. If the amount is not deposited by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
the said date, the order of stay granted by CGIT vide dated
06.12.2019, and the protection granted from taking any coercive
steps shall stand automatically vacated and it will be open to the
appellant organisation to proceed for recovery, notwithstanding the
fact that the appeal No.397 of 2018, is pending before the CGIT. In
any event, the respondent complies with the direction issued by us,
the order of stay will continue and the CGIT is directed to dispose
of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. However, there shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
02.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM., J.
and
S.ANANTHI., J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1275 of 2021
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
