M/S. METCUT TOOLINGS (P) LTD V. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I

WP/104103/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Metcut Toolings (P) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which challenged orders from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Hubballi. These orders imposed damages and interest on the petitioner for non-compliance with provident fund contributions from January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash these orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court had previously stayed further proceedings on the condition of depositing the claimed amounts, which the petitioner complied with partially. Due to the non-functioning of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the High Court decided to intervene by directing a partial deposit to ensure the matter is addressed expeditiously.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726877 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Companies Act, 1956, Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R PATIL
• Assessee Lawyers: KUSHAL BOLMAL
• Keywords: Central Government Industrial Tribunal; Damages; Deposit; Interest; Provident fund; Writ petition
• Section: 226; 14(b); 227; 7-Q

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.104103/2018 (L-PF) BETWEEN: M/S. METCUT TOOLINGS (P) LTD., PLOT NO.18-23, KIAD INDUSTRIAL AREA RAYAPUR, DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI SUDHIR SHETTY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI KUSHAL V BOLMAL, ADVOCATE.) AND: THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BEHIND INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI R S PATIL, ADVOCATE.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 2 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.HBL/RC-1/PD- 13386/ PROCEEDING/COC-4257/2018/25 UNDER SECTION 14-B OF THE ACT DATED 10.04.2018 OF THE EPF AUTHORITY IMPOSING DAMAGES OF RS.11,55,876/- AT ANNEXURE-“B” AND THE ORDER NO.HBL/RC-1/PD-13386/PROCEEDING/COC- 4257/2018/25 UNDER SECTION 7-Q OF THE ACT DATED 10.04.2018 INTEREST OF RS.6,31,892/-AT ANNEXURE-“C” FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2014 TO 30.06.2017, ETC.,. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER R.DEVDAS, J., (ORAL) The petitioner is a company registered under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered and corporate offices at Dharwad. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.4.2018 passed by the respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Hubballi. As per the impugned order the petitioner as a responsible employer is due to pay the dues for the period as detailed in the impugned order 3 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. 2. By order dated 13.7.2018, this Court stayed further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.11,55,876/- before the respondent authority. Thereafter, by order dated 27.11.2018, this Court permitted the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6,31,892/-, which is interest amount, within a period of one week. 3. This day, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has not been functioning and though the petitioner has filed the appeal before the Tribunal, it could not secure any orders since there is no sitting of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent would also admit the said fact. 4 4. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the amount mentioned at Annexures-B and C before the Tribunal and the respondents be directed not to precipitate the matter till the petition/application is taken up by the Tribunal. 5. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the amount mentioned in the impugned orders at Annexure-B & C before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Bengaluru, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Subject to such deposit being made before the Tribunal, the respondent shall not precipitate the matter as against the petitioner until the tribunal disposes of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. 5 6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Since the writ petition itself is disposed of, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Mrk/- "