Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 31 August, 2023
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Mettur Workshop Circle,
Mettur Dam-636 401
Rep. by its Superintending Engineer ... Petitioner/Appellant
-vs-
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office, Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza,
Anna Salai, Swarnapuri, Salem-4.
2. The Enforcement Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office, Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza,
Anna Salai, Swarnapuri, Salem-4. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33854 of 2007 dated 23.06.2011
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For M/s.T.S.Gopalan
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Meenkshi
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the order passed by a
Single Judge dated 23.06.2011 in W.P.No.33854 of 2007, in and by which,
while dismissing Writ Petitions, the following orders were passed:
"6.However, when the matters came up today, it is brought to
the notice of this Court by Mr.M.Muthupandian, learned counsel for
the third respondent Trade Union in WP.No.33007/07 that the
subject matter of the writ petitions has already been answered by the
Division Bench of this Court in the common judgement dated
13.7.2007 in W.A.Nos.887 and 888 of 2007 (Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board rep. by its Secretary, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai-2 v. the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFCI), Chennai &
Pondicherry, 37 Royapettah High Road, Chennai-14 and the Central
Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees (CITU) rep. by
its President, 13 Mosque Street, Chepauk, Chennai. In that case, the
Division Bench held that the exemption period under Section
16(1)(c) will not apply and there is no exemption specifically applied
to the appellant Board in terms of Section 16(1)(c) of the Act. In that
view of the matters, the appeals were dismissed and the order passed
by this Court dated 21.3.2007 was upheld.
7. Though Mr.V.Karthik, representing M/s.T.S.Gopalan &
Co, Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner Board has
moved the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.20177 and 20178 of
2007 against the said judgement and the Supreme Court has issued
notice in the Special Leave Petitions, it is unnecessary to retain the
writ petitions, on the file of this Court, as the issue as to whether
exemption period covered under Section 16(1)(c) will apply to the
Board, will be finally determined by the Supreme Court.
8.Therefore, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by
Mrs.R.Meenkshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the
order passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "EPF Act, 1952") has already
attained finality and that the Writ Petitioner/Appellant herein, without filing
an appeal before the Tribunal as adumbrated under the EPF Act, 1952,
straightaway approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant / TNEB (Electricity Board), by
filing an affidavit dated 23.08.2023 before this Court, has submitted that in
respect of three Distribution Circles, namely, Salem EDC, Mettur EDC and
Dharmapuri EDC, the quantum of amount has been considerably reduced
and against the orders passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act, 1952, no
appeal was preferred in view of the fact that the Appellant herein had filed
SLPs No.20177 and 20178 of 2007, pertaining to application filed under
Section 16(2) of the EPF Act, 1952. It is also represented that after the
orders in the SLP, a Review under Section 7-B of the EPF Act, 1952 was
filed. Though a plea of delay in filing Section 7-B application was raised by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
the EPFO, the Court directed the Authority to verify the records, as the
Electricity Board contended that the Union has produced records wherein
names have been repeated, which made them to pay to the EPFO through
their nose. On review, a determination was arrived at, wherein more than
75% of the amount has been reduced vide order passed under Section 7-B
of the EPF Act, 1952. The relevant Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit of the
Electricity Board is extracted below:
"6. I state that following the above, the 7B applications
were considered and the quantum of demand was considerably
reduced. I am filing details of the proceedings pertaining to 3
Electricity Distribution Circles (Salem, Mettur, Dharmapuri) in
the jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent, wherein similar exercise
has been carried out where also quantum of amount has been
reduced. The details of the same are given below:
Distribution Section 7A Order Section 7B Review Reduced Amount
Circles Order
Salem EDC Rs.4,75,03,496.65 Rs.1,02,50,366/- Rs.3,72,53,130.65
Mettur EDC Rs.7,77,55,962.30 Rs.1,21,50,952/- Rs.6,56,05,010.30
Dharmapuri EDC Rs.8,29,02,612.15 Rs.1,42,14,857/- Rs.6,86,87,755.15
4. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board has further submitted
that even in the 7-A proceedings, the Authority had found out that there
were overlapping names. Since a decision has already been taken by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
Apex Court with regard to Section 16(2) and the Act is applicable, in order
to find out whether there is any repetition made by employees in respect of
claim made by them, the matter may be remanded to the concerned
Authority and the Electricity Board is ready to produce necessary records to
establish that the claim has been made by the employees more than once.
5. Mrs.R.Meenkshi, learned counsel for the respondents has
contended that EPFO will scrutinize the entire documents and in case it is
found that there is no repetition, the Electricity Board is bound to remit the
amount as determined by the Authority.
6. Normally, this Court would not have entertained the Writ Appeal
on the ground that the Writ Petitioner / Appellant herein has got alternative
remedy. Taking note of the fact that the Writ Petition is of the year 2007
and the Writ Appeal has been preferred in the year 2011, instead of
directing the Appellant herein to avail alternative remedy under Section 7-I
of the EPF Act, 1952, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted
back to the Authority concerned with a direction to the Appellant to file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
Review within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Authority concerned of EPFO, after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the Electricity Board, shall pass appropriate orders thereon within a
period of three months from the date of commencement of the review
proceedings.
7. It is made clear that in case there is any repetition of names, those
names can be deleted and the reduced amount by means of an order
determined by the EPFO shall be paid by the Electricity Board. If there is
no reprise of names, the Appellant herein shall remit the amount as
determined by the Authority (EPFO). No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(S.V.N.J.,) (K.R.S,J.,)
31.08.2023
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
To:
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office, Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza,
Anna Salai, Swarnapuri, Salem-4.
2. The Enforcement Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office, Sri Jayalakshmi Plaza,
Anna Salai, Swarnapuri, Salem-4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ar
W.A.No.1879 of 2011
31.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
