The Khammam District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd v. Employees Provident Funds Organization Sub Regional Office
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWT URU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) T he Court made t he following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the Khammam District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited represented by its Business Manager assailing proceedings No.AP/SRO/WGL/P.D.Cell/4829/08- and AP/SRO/WGL/P.D.Cell/3084/08-09/54, dated 17.6.2008 issued by the respondent. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The main object of the petitioner- Society is to serve the farming community by providing fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and other marketing facilities. The financial situation of the society was in a bad shape from 1990 to 2006. It is the contention of the petitioner-Society that it is not covered under the provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore, any demand made by the respondent towards interest and penal damages for the alleged belated payments of provident fund dues is unjustified.
For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer to paragraph No.5 of the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder:
I respectfully submit that as regards the period 03/1992 to 02/1996 the demand for interest and damages being made by the respondent vide order dated 17.6.2008 ought to be treated as a stale proceedings. After a lapse of about 16 years a stale demand is being made for interest under Section 7Q and for damages under Section 14B. I submit a perusal of the order dated 17.6.2008 clearly reveals that neither have the respondent considered the laudable objects for which the petitioner society was established and the bad financial situation of the petitioner society nor have they pointed out any reasons warranting a stale demand. I submit in the absence of a detailed enquiry and a reasoned order for imposing interest and damages nearly after 16 years, the said order of 17.6.2008 ought to be declared as a nullity.
Rule Nisi came to be issued on 21.7.2008.
The respondent filed counter-affidavit. A.K.Singh has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner-Society is covered under the provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) with effect from 1-11-1975 with code number AP/295 and that the petitioner never disputed the applicability of the Act and paid the contributions. It is further stated that a statutory appeal is available to the petitioner-Society to challenge the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Society comes within the purview of Section 61-(1) of the Act and therefore, provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable. He further submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate Tribunal is pending and therefore, demanding the petitioner for payment of interest, penalty and damages on the alleged payment of provident fund dues cannot be sustained.
Operative part
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner-Society is covered under the Act with effect from 1.11.1975 and accordingly, contributions have been paid by it. Thus, the petitioner-society cannot be permitted to contend that it is not covered by the provisions of the Act. The petitioner-Society has suffered various orders under the provisions of the Act. It filed two writ petitions being WP No.4687 of 2002 and WP No.22388 of 2006. WP No.4687 of 2002 came to be disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. It appears that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the said appeal is stated to be pending. The impugned proceedings in the writ petition came to be issued by the respondent with regard to payment of interest and damages on the delayed payments of provident fund dues. The respondent issued the impugned proceedings under Section 14-B of the Act. A statutory remedy of appeal is provided under Section 7-g of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________ 05-11-2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Registration Act, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.