Wpc No. 1883 of 2006 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ appeal is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Judgment
MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J. & V.CHITAMBARESH, J.-------------------------------W.A.No.474 of 2012 -------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2012J U D G M E N TManjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also thelearned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached the learned singleJudge aggrieved by Ext.P3 where the respondents authority hasimposed damages of Rs.46,68,414/- under Section 14B of theEmployees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Again Ext.P1 ordercame to be passed under Section 7Q of the Act demanding interestas well. However, facility to pay off the interest in instalments isalready in favour of the appellant. Then the question is with regardto the damanges demanded under Section 14B of the Act. Thelearned Judge having regard to the statutory appeal providedunder the Act opined, there was no justification for the appellant toapproach the learned single Judge challenging Ext.P3 withoutchoosing recourse to statutory appeal. While saying so, the W.A.No.474 of 2012 2learned Judge also referred to the time within which an appealcould be filed and after referring to earlier judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court held it would not be proper toentertain a time barred claim, especially in respect of tax levy. Accordingly the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. Theappeal is filed aggrieved by the said judgment. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contendsthat as the unit was in severe financial crisis or virtually closed, there was not even a Manager to manage the affairs of theEstate and therefore there was no one even to think and decidewhether a statutory appeal has to be preferred or not. 3. All these facts could have been made in theapplication for condonation of delay in the statutory appealbefore the statutory authority. Subsequent to the disposal of thestatutory appeal, depending upon the nature of the order, it isalways open to the appellant to approach the High Court asprovided under the Act. 4. In that view of the matter, we make it clear that W.A.No.474 of 2012 3the appellant shall approach the statutory authority and putforth all the contentions raised before this Court and the sameshall be entertained in accordance with procedure. The appellantshall approach the appellate authority within two weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till appeal is filed, the respondent authorities shall not precipitate the coercivesteps. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. MANJULA CHELLUR, Acting Chief Justice. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj. MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J. & V.CHITAMBARESH, J.--------------------------------------JUDGMENTDated:- 30th March, 2012--------------------------------------
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.