BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05/09/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.3810 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 Vaigai Foods, Rep. by its Partner, Shri R.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkukulam, Madurai-625002. ... Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in his file reference No.TN/MDU/29621/Enf./Circle21/12036/2009, dated 11.03.2009 and quash the order of the respondent and to direct the respondent to give fresh hearing opportunity to the petitioner regarding enquiry under section 7A of Employees Provident Fund Act. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Manivannan ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.Muralishankar :ORDER
The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a
writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 11.03.2009, passed
by the respondent, under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 [herein-after referred to as ‘Act’].
2.The writ petition against the impugned order is not competent, as the
petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal under the Act.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the order, dated 11.03.2009 is
an ex-parte order, as the counsel for the petitioner was not heard.
4.The undisputed facts, are that the petitioner had engaged a counsel to
represent the petitioner before the authority in proceeding, under section 7A of
the Act. The counsel without intimation to the petitioner did not appear on the
date fixed the case, due to boycott of courts.
5.The petitioner, thereafter, within the stipulated period moved an
application for setting aside the ex-parte order giving reasons for non-
appearance of the counsel for the petitioner.
6.It is not disputed that the application moved by the petitioner has not
been disposed of till date. The respondent, without taking any decision, the
application moved by the petitioner, has initiated recovery proceedings. This
has forced the petitioner to approach this court. This court stayed the
recovery proceedings.
7.It is not in dispute that till date, the respondent has failed to decide
the application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte
proceeding.
8.Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the
respondent to consider and decide the application moved by the petitioner for
setting aside the ex-parte order passed under section 7(A), by passing a
detailed speaking order, and till the disposal of the application, the order of
recovery shall remain stayed. In case of any adverse order, it shall be open to
petitioner to avail his statutory remedy in accordance with law.
9.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
er