The Divisional Engineer, Transformers, Vidyut Bhavan, Yerramukkapalli, APSPDCL, Kadapa v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Nov 2004
- Bench
- A GOPAL REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
not functioning, the writ petition is disposed of, on condition of petitioner depositing
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or Direction of a Writ more particularly one in the nature of "WRIT OF MANDAMUS" restraining the respondent in giving effect to his proceedings No.AP/CP/43264/CDP/ENF.III/2004-05/6933, dated 4-11-2004. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondent: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following : ORDER When the writ petition is taken up for admission, the only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that without issuing summons and examining the Contractor, who engaged the employees, the respondent cannot fix up the liability on the principal employer. In view of the law declared by Apex Court in FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, which was followed by this Court in W.P.No.24209 of 2003 dated 3.12.2003, the assessment order passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) is liable to be set aside.
Operative part
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contends that issuance of notice to the Contractor does not arise since the employees of the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and produced the list of Contractors and wages paid to the employees engaged by the Contractor and basing upon the information furnished with regard to the wages, the dues of Provident Fund have been determined. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment made by the respondent, it is open to it to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The very fact of issuing notice to Contractor, who engages the employees is to ascertain the contribution on the basis of wages paid, which information available with the petitioner was produced during enquiry. In view of the same, petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of two months from today. Since the Appellate Tribunal is not functioning, the writ petition is disposed of, on condition of petitioner depositing 50% of the amount demanded by the respondent within two months and files an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within the said date, the respondent shall not take coercive steps for due recovery of the amount.
On petitioner producing the deposit pursuant to the order passed in this writ petition, the Appellate Tribunal without insisting for deposit of 75% of the amount for entertaining the appeal, shall consider the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The amount so deposited will be subject to the orders passed in the appeal. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J. 10th November, 2004 tsr. To
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, 1/30 R S Road, Kadapa - 518 004.
Two C.D. copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: not functioning, the writ petition is disposed of, on condition of petitioner depositing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 10 Nov 2004. The bench was A GOPAL REDDY.
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.