High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 02 GUJ CK 0140

Crown Ceramics vs Assistan Provident Commissioner and Another

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 4 February 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 8665 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 702 words

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The Petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 3/5/2010 passed by the Employees P.F. Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No. 331 (5)2007, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 30/11/2006 passed by the Respondent No. 1, i.e. the Assistant P.F. Commissioner, determining an amount of Rs. 10,37,971/- as P.F. dues while exercising the power conferred over him u/s 7-A of Employees P.F. & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as the ''P.F. Act'' for brevity). The Respondent No. 1 has also imposed & assessed interest amount of Rs. 9,51,886/-. The Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21/5/2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 directing Respondent No. 2 Bank to pay Rs. 15,31,564/- from the Bank account of the Petitioner, and also challenged the show cause notice for warrant of arrest dated 12/7/2010.

2.

This Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J) on 29/7/2010 passed the following order:

Rule. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 27.08.2010.

In the meantime, by way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that the Respondent authority shall not take any coercive steps against the Petitioner on condition that the Petitioner shall deposit he amount, as directed by the authority concerned, with the Registry of this Court, before the returnable date.

On such deposit being made, the Registry shall invest the amount in F.D.R., with S.B.I., Gujarat High Court Complex Branch, Ahmedabad on long term basis and the same shall be renewed from time to time, without any orders in that regard. The interest on the said F.D.R., shall be accumulated. The orders regarding disbursement shall be passed at the time of final disposal of the petition.

3.

The counsel of the respective parties make request for disposing of this matter by issuing suitable direction as the Court was inclined to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned order is ex-parte and hence it is required to be quashed & set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the authority for fresh consideration, after affording opportunity of being heard to the concerned. The question with regard to amount which is already deposited under the order of this Court dated 29/7/2010 is to be decided. When the matter itself is required to be disposed of on short question of remand, the amount under the order of the Court which is lying with the State Bank of India, Gujarat High Court Complex Branch, shall also be required to be remitted to the P.F. Authorities, with a specific direction that in case if the P.F. Authority is accepting the submission of Petitioner and in such a case the amount or the amount refundable shall be refunded within 7 days from the date of such orders.

4.

The impugned order is ex-parte and therefore it is required to be quashed & set aside only with a view to afford an opportunity to the Petitioner. The PF Authority shall not be prejudiced in any manner by quashing of this order as the sizable amount out of the total amount dues is already ordered to be deposited with the PF Authorities by this order and at the same time the Petitioner is getting an opportunity of laying his case before the PF Authority for appropriate orders.

5.

In this view of the matter, the order impugned, viz., order dated 3/5/2010 passed by Employees'' PF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal ATA No. 331 (5) 2007, and orders dated 30/11/2006 and 21/5/2010 passed by the Assistant PF Commissioner, and show cause notice dated 12/7/2010 for warrant of arrest issued, are quashed and set aside. The Petitioner shall also file an undertaking to the PF Authority with a copy to otherwise that in case if the amount that may be determined ultimately exceeds the amount which is now being sent back to the authority, same shall be paid within 30 days from the date of the order subject to the right to challenge the said order in appropriate forum. With this observation, rule made absolute. No order as to cost.

6.

Office is directed to remit the amount forthwith to the PF Authority.