T.A.Mohammed Kutty vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 11 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1648 of 2008(U)


1. T.A.MOHAMMED KUTTY, THELAPPALLIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :11/01/2010

 O R D E R
                         P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                      ---------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C)No.1648 of 2008
                     ----------------------------------------
                      Dated 11th January, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 letter dated 26.6.2007 sent by the respondent to

the petitioner informing him that the respondent has decided to issue

warrant of arrest to arrest and detain him in the civil prison in exercise

of the power conferred on him under Section 8B(1)(b) of the

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,

for recovery of the sum of Rs.1,54,099/- due from the petitioner’s

establishment is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for both sides submit

that the amount demanded in Ext.P5 has been paid in full. The

learned counsel appearing for the respondent however submits that

besides the amount demanded in Ext.P5, damages levied under

Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is also due

from the petitioner’s establishment. The learned counsel submits that

in such circumstances, the petitioner may be directed to remit the said

amounts also in full.

3. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that as the amount demanded in Ext.P5 has

WP(C).No.1648/2008 2

been paid in full, the decision to issue a warrant of arrest to detain the

petitioner in civil prison for non-payment of Rs.1,54,099/= does not

any longer survive and that if at all further amounts are due from the

establishment and payable by the establishment, the remedy of the

respondent is to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The

petitioner also submits that he cannot be proceeded against in the first

instance and that the establishment and its assets will have to be

proceeded. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the said

submissions and submits that the petitioner who is one among the

Directors can be proceeded against for recovery of the

damages/interest under Section 8B of the Act and that it is open to the

Employees’ Provident Fund Organization to adopt any one or more of

the methods set out in Section 8B of the Act to recover the amounts

due from the establishment.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the

learned counsel appearing on either side. In this writ petition, the

challenge is only to Ext.P5 notice whereby the petitioner was informed

that the respondent has decided to issue a warrant of arrest to arrest

and detain him in the civil prison. It is not in dispute that the amount

demanded in Ext.P5 has been paid in full. In such circumstances, no

further orders are called for in this writ petition except to close it as

WP(C).No.1648/2008 3

infructuous, with the observation that if further amounts are due from

the petitioner’s establishment, it will be open to the Employees’

Provident Fund Organization to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance

with law to recover the said amount. The contentions of both sides on

the merits are kept open.

P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge

TKS