M/s. Somkan Marine Foods Ltd v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Sub Regional Office, Opp: Kambal Tank, Rajahmundry, East
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s. Somkan Marine Foods Ltd., Adavipalem, Yanam - 533 464, represented by its Factory Manager Shri C.Ramesh. ..... PETITIONER
AND Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Sub Regional Office, Opp: Kambal Tank, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT
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 a direction or order more specifically a writ one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for records pertaining to enquiry proceedings No. 248/2007 initiated under Section 7A of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in case No. AP/36691 on the file of respondent and declaring the orders dated 30.3.2009 passed by respondent as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S.C.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondent: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8115 of 2009
ORDER:
Operative part
It is the grievance of the petitioner that, in a proceedings initiated by the respondent with regard to the amounts due and payable by the petitioner under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’), it has submitted its written explanation, on 28.01.2008, raising all the objections including the applicability of the Act to it, but the respondent, without considering the same, is proceeding to conclude proceedings contrary to law and made certain observations in his order dated 30.03.2009 to the effect that the petitioner is playing delaying tactics by raising the applicability dispute, and adjourned proceedings to 15.04.2009 directing the management of the petitioner to submit the desired details as required by the Enforcement Officer and directing the Enforcement Officer to submit his report by that date. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections, in particular, the objections raised at paragraphs 4 and 9 in the written explanation submitted by the petitioner on 28.01.2008, were not properly considered by the respondent, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the findings in the impugned order dated 30.03.2009 are only prima facie findings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondent is directed to consider all the objections raised by the petitioner in the written explanation submitted by it on 28.01.2008, and shall record findings on the same, in particular, on the objections raised at paragraphs 4 and 9 of the said written explanation, before passing final orders. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 21st April, 2009. IBL _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 226, 265; Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — s. 7A; Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
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.