✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 18 Oct 2007

M/s. Bakran Beedi Works, Armoor, Nizamabad District, A.P v. Office, Nizamabad of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, (Ministry of Labour, Govt

Writ Petition No. 8451 of 2008NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

With this, the writ petition stands disposed of

Provisions considered

Judgment

Cause title

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.SRINIVASA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: EMPLOYEES’ P.F. ORGANIZATION) MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.8451 of 2008

ORDER:

This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the correctness of orders passed on 10.08.2006 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Nizamabad, imposing a levy of a total sum of Rs.30,91,654/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Four only) as damages for the belated remittances made by the petitioner-employer for the period from 03/86 to 03/96. The impugned order has been passed in exercise of the power available the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the assertion of the writ petitioner that it had made its remittances to the Provident Fund Organization, but, however, due to certain discrepancies with regard to the data submitted by it in that regard, it has been construed as if it had committed violation of the provision contained under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on or before 15.05.2008 with the Sub Regional Office of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Nizamabad. The petitioner also undertakes to submit a detailed representation enclosing thereto the necessary material indicating the remittances made to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to provide the petitioner an opportunity to satisfy the Sub-Regional Office of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization that the remittances have, in fact, been made by the petitioner during the relevant period of time. The 2nd respondent will re-consider the matter and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Should the petitioner commit default either in making the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on or before

Operative part

15.05.2008 or commit default in submitting the detailed representation enclosing thereto the necessary material available with it to vouch for the remittances made, it is open to the respondents to proceed further in the matter from the stage where it stands today. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J) __________________________ 21st April, 2008. Note:- Issue CC in three days. B/o IBL To 1 The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, 7th Floor, Skylark Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110 019. 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Sub-Regional Office, Nizamabad of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, (Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India), Sub-Regional Office, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad, A.P. 3 The Assistant P.F. Commissioner and Recovery Officer, Sub-Regional Office, Nizamabad of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, (Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India), Sub- Regional Office, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad, A.P. 4 Two CD Copies

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: With this, the writ petition stands disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 18 Oct 2007. The bench was NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 8451 of 2008). ← Search more judgments