The Central Electro Chemical ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 30 Mad

                                                                        W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED:02.01.2023

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                           W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022
                                          W.M.P(MD).No.23140 of 2022

                     The Central Electro Chemical Research Institute,
                     Rep.by its Director,
                     Karaikudi.                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                        Vs.

                     1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
                       Employees' Provident Fund Organization,
                       Lady Doak College Road,
                       Chokkikulam,
                       Madurai-625 002.

                     2.The Recovery Officer,
                       Employees' Provident Fund Organization,
                       Lady Doak College Road,
                       Chokkikulam,
                       Madurai-625 002.

                     3.M/s.Alagappapuram Labour Contract
                       Co-operative Society,
                       Rep.by its Secretary,
                       Karaikudi.

                     4.Registrar,
                       Central Government IT cum Labour Court

                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                            W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022


                         and Employee Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal,
                         Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam,
                         Chennai.                                              ... Respondents

                     Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                     of the 4th respondent in F.No.EPFA.17 of 2019 dated 26.09.2022, quash
                     the same and direct the 4th respondent to restore the same on file and
                     proceed in accordance with law within a time frame.

                                  For Petitioner            : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan


                                  For Respondents           : Mr.K.Murali Shankar


                                                    ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records

pertaining to the order of the 4th respondent passed in F.No.EPFA.17 of

2019 dated 26.09.2022, quash the same and direct the 4 th respondent to

restore the same on file and proceed in accordance with law within a time

frame.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the

Central Research Institute which had engaged Contract Labours for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022

sweeping and gardening for various periods till 1999. As per the

agreement, the third respondent had been directed to pay the EPF

Contributions of the labourers and produce the counterfoil, based on

which, the petitioner would reimburse to the third respondent. Initially,

on 12.08.2009, the 2nd respondent found that the petitioner was liable to

pay a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards the contribution of the third

respondent. The same was challenged by way of writ petitions by the

petitioner before this Court in W.P(MD).No.8498 and 8499 of 2010 and

this Court has dismissed the writ petitions on 14.10.2011, as against

which, the petitioner has preferred appeals in W.A(MD).Nos.1166 and

1167 of 2011. This Court vide its order dated 05.12.2018 permitted the

petitioner to withdraw the writ appeal and granted liberty to the

petitioner herein to file a statutory appeal before the appropriate authority

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment and directed the Authority to entertain the appeal,

notwithstanding the delay and dispose of the same at an early date.

Subsequently, the appeal was filed by the petitioner, however, the same

was dismissed for default on the ground that the petitioner has not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022

appeared before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a

petition to restore the appeal preferred by them. However, the same was

rejected on the ground that there was a delay in making the application.

Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court, the appeal has been filed by the petitioner. At that time, the

petitioner's counsel suffered with head injury and he was admitted in the

hospital. Therefore, he was unable to appear before the Tribunal.

However, without considering the facts, the Tribunal dismissed the

petitioner's appeal for default. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a

petition to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the petition to restore

the appeal preferred by them. However, without providing sufficient

opportunity to the petitioner, the Tribunal has rejected the petition filed

by the petitioner. Hence, this Court may set aside the impugned order

passed by the 4th respondent and remand the matter back to the 4 th

respondent for fresh consideration.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

5. Since the appeal was rejected solely on the ground that the

petitioner's counsel has not appeared before the Tribunal and the petition

for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the same to restore the

appeal was rejected on the ground that there is no provision available for

condoning the delay to restore the appeal, without providing opportunity

to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order

passed by the 4th respondent in F.No.E.P.F.A.17 of 2019 dated 26.09.2022

on the ground that the petitioner is entitled for fair opportunity and the

matter is remanded back to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration. The

4th respondent is directed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate

orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner's counsel is

directed to appear before the Tribunal without any default.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.01.2023

ssb NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

To

1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.

2.The Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.

3.M/s.Alagappapuram Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Rep.by its Secretary, Karaikudi.

4.Registrar, Central Government IT cum Labour Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022

and Employee Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

ssb

W.P.(MD)No.29204 of 2022

02.01.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis