M/S RAM COMPUTERS V. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II

WP/103219/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Ram Computers, represented by its proprietor Mr. Annasaheb Bangare, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The petition sought to prevent the respondent from taking coercive recovery actions based on an order issued on 25/03/2024, due to the vacancy of the Presiding Officer at the CGIT and EPF Appellate Tribunal, which rendered the Tribunal non-functional. The respondent conceded to the petitioner's request for interim relief, subject to certain conditions aimed at ensuring the petitioner's compliance with procedural requirements once the Tribunal resumes operations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695335 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P V GUNJAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHAWARDHAN PATIL
• Keywords: Coercive steps of recovery; EPF Appellate Tribunal; Writ of Mandamus; CGIT; Presiding Officer Vacancy
• Section: 14(b)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8147 WP No. 103219 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.103219 OF 2024 (L-PF) BETWEEN: M/S. RAM COMPUTERS, NO. 204, 2ND FLOOR, SRI LAXMI SIDDI LIGHT COMPLEX, TAVATIGALLI, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR ANNASAHEB BANGARE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB RIGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK NO 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE NAVANAGAR, HUBLI – 580 025, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS THAT IN VIEW OF VACANCY OF THE CGIT AND EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KINDLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO NOT TO TAKE ANY COERCIVE STEPS OF RECOVERY PURSUANT TO ORDER NO KN/GB/HBL/PENAL DAMAGES/63360-2023-24/1696 DATED 25/03/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, TILL PRESIDING OFFICER REPORTED TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND LISTING OF STATUTORY APPEAL TO BE FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU FOR ADMISSION. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8147 WP No. 103219 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking direction to the respondent not to take any coercive steps of recovery pursuant to the order dated 25.03.2024 till the Presiding Officer of the CGIT and EPF Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) is appointed and functioning of the Tribunal resumes. 2. Issue pertains to the order passed by the respondent Provident Fund Commission under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since CGIT is not functioning for want of appointment of Presiding Officer till such time the petitioner be provided with an interim protection. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent files a memo dated 18.6.2024 and submits that in view of Tribunal not - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8147 WP No. 103219 of 2024 functioning, the petition be allowed subject to direction to the petitioner to deposit 30% of the amount demanded with the respondent authority within two weeks and the petitioner shall obtain appropriate orders from the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of commencement and functioning of the said Tribunal, till such time, the respondent authority shall not give effect to the demand made in the impugned order. 5. The submission is placed on record. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the demand amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner thereafter shall file an appeal before the Tribunal and shall obtain appropriate orders within eight weeks, from the date of commencement of functioning of Tribunal. Till such time, the respondent authority shall not give effect to the demand made in the impugned order. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8147 WP No. 103219 of 2024 It is made clear that, if the petitioner failed to deposit the amount as directed by the respondent authority, the respondent authority would be entitle to give effect to the impugned order in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE VB/CT-ASC/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 "