Writ Petition No. 21337 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4369 WP No. 21337 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 21337 OF 2024 (L-PF) BETWEEN: M/S SINGH SECURITY SERVICES REGISTERED AS A COMMERCIAL SHOP AND ESTABLISMENT ACT 1960, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 246, 7TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560 085, S/O RAMASHAKER SINGH. (BY SRI AJAY KADKOL T, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ANNAPURNESHWARI COMPLEX, SY. NO. 37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - II REGIONAL OFFICE, ANNAPURNESHWARI COMPLEX, SY. NO. 37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4369 WP No. 21337 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY THE REGIIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II. 3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (ACCOUNTS GROUP-15), REGIONAL OFFICE, ANNAPURNESHWARI COMPLEX, SY. NO. 37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068. 4. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENAL DAMAGES AND INTEREST), REGIONAL OFFICE, ANNAPURNESHWARI COMPLEX, SY. NO. 37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 5. AREA ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ANNAPURNESHWARI COMPLEX, SY. NO. 37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068, REP. BY THE AREA ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI B PRAMOD, ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 12.06.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REGIONAL II BANGALORE DIRECTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PAY IN ALL A SUM OF RS. 66,87,742/- (RUPEES SIXTY-SIX LAKH EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY TWO FUND COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4369 WP No. 21337 of 2024 ONLY) AND FURTHER ORDERING THAT THE PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 14B AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 7Q OF THE ACT ON BELATED PAYMENTS WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary issue on the premise that the impugned order which is questioned by invoking the writ jurisdiction is appealable under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order is passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and order is without jurisdiction. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4369 WP No. 21337 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the respondents taking through the impugned order would submit that after the appearance of the petitioner before the authority, matter was adjourned for almost one and half year and the representative of the petitioner was present through video conference on various dates. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since hearing took place through video conference, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to produce the documents and there is no fair hearing. It is also his further submission that no person who is said to be the employee of the petitioner has made a demand or lodged a complaint against the petitioner, as such, the order is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that under the relevant Rule, the petitioner is required to deposit 75% of the amount demanded as such, the remedy is not efficacious. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4369 WP No. 21337 of 2024 7. The contention that the petitioner is not given an opportunity of hearing is wholly incorrect. The impugned order would indicate that on several occasions, the petitioner's representative was present through video conference whenever the case was listed. Whether the petitioner has made a request to produce the documents and same was denied is not forthcoming from the records. Nevertheless, the petitioner could have made a representation in writing by placing the said representation before the competent authority, assuming that hearing through video conference is impermissible. There is nothing to indicate that such an attempt is made out by the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner did protest for hearing through video conference. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case is made out to entertain the petition bypassing the statutory appeal on the premise that principles of natural justice have been violated. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4369 WP No. 21337 of 2024 9. It is also not in dispute that the order is passed by the authority constituted under the Act. On this count also, it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition without the petitioner exhausting the alternative remedy. 10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit 75% of the amount demanded, that itself cannot be a ground to entertain a writ petition bypassing alternative remedy of appeal. More over, proviso to Rule 7 of the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 provides for moving an application to waive or to reduce the amount to be deposited to file an appeal. It is for the petitioner to make out a case for such a reduction or waiver and it is for the Appellate Authority to consider such an application on merits. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4369 WP No. 21337 of 2024 11. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is not entertained. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. 12. The time spent in prosecuting the present petition from 31.07.2024 till date is excluded in computing the limitation. 13. Nothing is expressed on the merits. All the contentions are kept upon. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12