High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 11 KL CK 0142

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Educational Cooperative Society Limited vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 10 November 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amit Rawal, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 36012 Of 2022

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

5 paragraphs · 345 words

Amit Rawal, J

1.

Petitioner is an Educational Co-operative Society and is covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. There were dispute with regard to non payment of the contribution resulting into an enquiry under Section 7A, which has been discharged. However the consequential effect in making the remittance proceedings under Section 7Q and 14B were initiated. The amount assessed under Section 7Q towards the interest has already been paid. However the respondent confirmed the levy under Section 14B and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,46,413/-, Ext.P4.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the order aforementioned is appealable, an appeal has been filed with interim prayer but there is no presiding officer. But in the meantime, garnishee proceedings under Section 8F of the Act have been issued Exts.P6 and P7 whereby the Manager of the Kerala Bank, Palayam has been directed to transfer the amount within a period specified therein. It is next contended that the predicament of the petitioner is writ large being remediless and therefore under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not moved any application for interim stay but do not deny that the appellate authority is without Presiding Officer.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was waiting for the appointment of the Presiding Officer but in the interregnum, the garnishee notices were issued, gave a cause of action to the petitioner and approached this Court. I am of the view that the litigants cannot be rendered remediless and therefore this Court comes to the rescue while exercising the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I dispose of the writ petition that till the Presiding officer is appointed, the impugned orders Exts.P6 and P7 shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall submit an indemnity bond with the respondents so that the amount is secured subject to the outcome of the pending appeal.