Tom Joseph, Manager V. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Kottayam and The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Kottayam and K.T. Sanu and Bindu Sanu and A.S.R. Subbiah and A.S.R. Alakakumar

WP(C)/5199/2008

AI Insights

The case involves Tom Joseph, the manager of Chembarathikkal Estate, who filed a writ petition against the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others, challenging the attachment of the estate for the realization of amounts under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The petitioner argued that the estate had been abandoned since 1982, and thus, the orders issued under Section 7A of the Act were not applicable. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, noting the ex parte nature of the initial orders and the substantial evidence provided, including a certificate from the Inspector of Plantations and an assessment order under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, both indicating the estate's non-operation during the relevant period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689669 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOY ITOOP
• Assessee Lawyers: E K NANDAKUMAR; A K JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR; K MATHAI; P THOMAS; ANIL NAIR
• Keywords: Estate management; Exparte orders; Provident fund; Realisation of amounts; Abandoned Property
• Section: 7A

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5199 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TOM JOSEPH, MANAGER, CHEMBARATHIKKAL ESTATE, CHATHURANGAPARA P.O., IDUKKI 685 553 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. K.T.SANU, PATTASSERIL, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KIDANGOOR KARA, MEENACHIL TALUK. 4. BINDU SANU, PATTASSERIL, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KIDANGOOR KARA, MEENACHIL TALUK. 5. A.S.R. SUBBIAH, PANKAJAM HOUSE, CHURCH STREET, BODINAKKANNOOR, THENI DISTRICT - 625 513, TAMIL NADU. 6. A.S.R. ALAKAKUMAR, PANKAJAM HOUSE, CHURCH STREET, BODINAKKANNOOR, THENI DISTRICT - 625 513, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.5199 of 2008 (R) ======================= Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the purchaser of an estate which according to the petitioner has been lying abandoned from 1982 onwards. Now the estate has been attached by the Provident Fund Organisation for realisation of amounts covered by Exts. P6, P7 & P8 orders issued under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. According to the petitioner, the erstwhile owners could not properly appraise the 1st respondent of the real fact situation by producing evidence to show that the estate was not functioning during the period covered by the impugned orders. The petitioner has now produced Ext.P2 certificate from the Inspector of Plantations certifying that the estate was under closure for the period from April 1982 till date of the certificate, namely, 9.1.2008. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P3 assessment order under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, in which also it is specifically mentioned that the estate was in an abandoned condition and under lockout from 1982 to 1990. The petitioner now seeks a W.P.(C) No.5199/2008/R -2- chance to produce these documents before the 1st respondent and seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of those documents. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation. From the impugned orders, I find that they are exparte orders. If the estate was not actually functioning, it would be a travesty of justice, if the petitioner is made to pay such amounts under the Act. Therefore, I feel that the 1st respondent should have a second look of the matter on the face of the evidence now sought to be produced by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, no further proceedings shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P9. The writ petition is disposed of as above S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp "