THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT v. M/S HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD., BANGALORE COMPLEX, JALAHALLI P.O

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO W.A. Nos.16779/2011 & 2407/2012 (L-PF) C/w W.A. Nos.16780/2011 & 3447/2012 (L-PF) BETWEEN : 1 2 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION (C & R) EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION KARNATAKA “BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN” NO.13 RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PEENYA REGION, S (1) F FIRST CROSS, I STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE 560 058 ...APPELLANTS (COMMON IN ALL WRIT APPEALS) ( By SRI. T.M. ADIGA, ADV. FOR SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV. ) AND : M/S HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD., BANGALORE COMPLEX, JALAHALLI P.O. - 2 - BANGALORE 560 013 REP. BY ITS JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (HRM). ..RESPONDENT (COMMON IN ALL WRIT APPEALS) ( By Sri. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADV.) W.A. Nos. 16779/2011 & 2407/2012 are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records and set aside the order dated 15th June 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 30371-30372/2010. W.A. Nos. 16780/2011 & 3447/2012 are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records and set aside the order dated 5th August 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.17429-30/2011. These writ appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, V. SURI APPA RAO. J., delivered the following : JUDGMENT The Regional Provident Fund Organisation - 1st respondent in W.P. No. 30371-72/2010 filed these appeals challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15 th June 2011 and 5th August 2011.

The brief facts of the case are as under : The HMT Machine Tools Limited, Bangalore was declared as Sick Industrial Company under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 when arraigned the Provident Fund Authority was a party to the proceedings before the Board for - 3 - Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) issued a direction to the Provident Fund authorities on 12.06.2008 not to initiate any coercive action against the Company without its permission. Thereafter, the said BIFR sanctioned a scheme whereunder in Clause 9.7 the Provident Fund Authorities were directed to consider waiver of penal interest/penalty/damages, etc., on delayed payments of Provident Fund and Family Pension by the petitioner. The same is pending before the Central Board of Trustees and Employees Provident Fund, Government of India, before whom the petitioner preferred the appeal and the same is registered as ATA 254(6) 2004 questioning the order under Section 14-B of the act in determining the damages and interest. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the HMT Machine Tools Limited questioning the warrant of attachment of moveable properties issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure 'G' and remitted the matter back for consideration afresh after affording opportunity of hearing both the parties. Meanwhile, the warrant of attachment of moveable properties and other coercive proposed action for recovery of damages was quashed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the Regional Provident Fund filed these appeals. - 4 -

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of attachment and remitted the matter back to the tribunal for consideration afresh and to pass appropriate orders extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties after the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund, Government of India takes a decision for the waiver of damages and interest, etc. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case warrants no interference since it is for the Government of India to take a decision for the waiver of damages, interest, etc. Under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the warrant of attachment of moveable properties of HMT Machine Tools Ltd., Bangalore.

We therefore of the view that no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. Rbv*