IN THE HIGH COURT QF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL£)F?:ET.
DATED THIS THE 1361 my OF NOVEMBER "
3EFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. Jusrzcrgfi B{)PANN£;: = J
WRIT PETFTION No.1+'-537/2%)é?¢5"€:L " ' " %%
BETWEEN:
ms TULSE CHITRA MANQERA MARATHA1..-LI" . ._
BANGALORE, REPRESEN'I'E_D"B;Y'._l'I'S;_=
PROPREETOR SR! SUBBARAO cfiawm' "
AGEDAB{}U'§'65YEARS
g ' * -;,.'PETETIONER
(By -991}; av rm': 1., ADV. ,1
EMFL€}¥.EES iimwasnf'-mi':§D ORGANISATION
marsgcram ASSI$'7--37AN'I' FROVIDEHT FUND
'V " 'EOMVMESSEQNER, BHAV":SHYAN£DHI BHAVAN 7
RAJA ma MORAN ROY ROAB, BANGALGRE 25
REPRESEWED .,B"1'. rrs Assxsmm
PR0-tzInE~m*.;=fuxm'coMM:ss1oNER
A RESPONDENT
{By éra; 'ézasfa R mnmmcmn, ADV.,}
V, A' * 4_ THIS VLF. FILED UNDER Ai'1'?iCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
'-C£?§~IS'i'I'1'i}'I'IOI~I OF' INDEA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
. DA'TE;'iJ 13.'? .2005 PASSED BY THE APFELLATE TRXBUNAL VIBE
A!'11"(--E; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED 8'!' 'THE RESPONDENT
= m'rE.t> 25.10.2000 VIBE mxus.
This Writ Petition oomfmg on for hearing, this day, the
Court made the following :
E
ORDER
The petitioner is calling in
25/30.10.2000 passed by the V’auir;m:§:iqr ”
Employees Provident Fund
Act, 1952 (hereinafter Ieiegjedgct’ and
the order dated 13.7.2065 Tribunal
under the said ” V ”
2. In towards employees
pIOVidcfit as oontemplatul under
Section ‘?’Ai§.upf the herein appeared before
the certain ciocuments. The
” V. “v’n’:,._tl1e Offieer hm sought fiat further
to the establishment to line! out with
ta ‘jzquazutum of the contribution to be paid.
‘Though the petitioner disputed the applicability “of
itself, the position with mgard in the applicability has
been aeoepmd by the petitioner in View of the fact that
oermin mncmnts i.e., Rs.1,08,833/~ has been paid by the
petitioner. In this Iegant cm the available records, the
3
authority has quemtified the total
after deducting fie said amount $55′ ‘the: ‘gin
further mount of R3.1,84,4+41/~ :’:ms%._A#pa¥éh3e”*Vby’%
establishment V _
3. Against the
the pctitioncr herein had m No.16(6)/O1
hcfam am Empsgegs Tribunal.
The ‘I’11’buna3-I has noticed’ that
insofar _tl_1~eWAct, the same does not
arise at “a=tage_ ‘ the quantum, it has only
noizicegi -the figder Section 7A and disposed the
a perusal of the order passed by the
which is Empuwed at Ann:-xurc-E to the
‘ sficiuki ‘mdic:atr: that the aaxd’ order insofar as nouvcm” ‘ g
“:L:£i£2c:éij;§p}icabiBt}r of the Act is no more in dispute. But, with
to the quanuficm” non’ of the amount in an enqu11y’
4 under Secfion 7A of the: Act, the Tribunal has not conaidcsmd
L
1
G
the same in detail to come to the conclusion as__t6″\él:cf_h é:g H
the older datm 25/30-10-2000 is jnst:ified crV.A4_j3s.r;t.’~A./,::i11 ‘«
normal circumstance, it would in T
aside the said order t9 that exlsnt V
the Tribtmal. However, before’ so, a. the
order dated 25/30-Iemizigeo mg the
quantification the enquiry
under though the
cstaiziishmczfi dbcuments before the
authoiiiffif, the ‘- gifit oonsidczr the smc to he
aompiete. éfifhofity has further obscured that
thouigilg the are not available, there is no other
Gfifififi fs:>bvA1″At1ts:VA:Véx:1_t11o1’ity except to pmecaad with the matter to
. thé ‘ V ‘
S. as the profit and lo$s account and the
valimt mfied on by the authority, the icarncd oounsci
A l ‘fs3r petitioner contends that the same was not the
ficzipmpfiam document and the copies of ccrtain dcouments
are yroduoed in this petition along with a memo. The said
i
documents have bum produced to dispute 9
made by the authority in the
of the Act. In a fact of this natuxfez, ififiéif ‘V L»
has indicatnd that the order is .”ti1t.¢A ‘éa;\raV§}abIe
documents since all thcrf it
wouki not be pmper to which have
been ftkuzi as ho
whether the (Z;.”£’.: I10’t. All that could be
noticed %hfii”‘7.§iC authozity has passed
the o1d4$r._oi1 ivhich were avaiiable bcibm .
it and the that the cntizne material has
.h_<_{:_fqre it desgaitse providing suficicnt
cp'potftur1:;ft3r,'«..i 'l'h¢11:ib1'c, to the said exinnt, the petitioner
provided an opportunity to produce the
V are not mfimd on before the authority and
H 'A mgthiiiityr should. be directed m rwonsidcr the mattcr by
a fits}: enquiry. To that extent, the order datzad
'T if ' :25)3o-1o–2ooo weuld have to be quashed.
is
6. However, the said opportunity to be
petitioner would have to be granted after .
this mgaxd, it is diwcted that the: p¢gjfionc:s’ ” ~ ‘V
costs of Rs.5,000/– by dcposiafig egzaej?
authority who shall receive tI1c’§sc:1_:g1e fut: *
of its activiuzes. The order dat£:&«.’.i25{_30L the
order dated 133.2005 The case in
No. Km/PF; 13:; CJ_RCLEj1_I._I D{)– 3.54:97.1Zfi’i§{i9’V”AnncxuIe B is
irestaored to bf . “A.$si s’tf§in’t——wV: Provident Fund
commissiona, (me afresh aim
providing oppahxnxqz; and dispose of
the in I
_ obsavations, dimdziom and
disposed 012
Sd/Q
Tudgé