BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 05/09/2011
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Writ Petition (MD) No.5056 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009
Jai Renga Mills Private Limited,
represented by its Authorised Signatory
Shri S. Mohanram,
Post Box No.47, Tenkasi Road,
Rajapalayam - 626 117,
Virudhunagar District. ...... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Officer,
No.1, Lady Doak College Road,
Chokkikulam, Madurai - 2.
2. The Enforcement Officer,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. ...... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the first respondent in No.M-
8/TN/10314/ENF. "B"/RO/MD/09 dated 08.05.2009 and quash the same and
consequently to direct the respondents to permit the Petitioner Mill to pay the
Provident Fund arrears on equal installment basis.
!For Petitioner ... Mr. M. Saravana Kumar
^For Respondents... Mr. G. R. Swaminathan
- - - - - - - -
:ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court, for issuance of a Writ, in
the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 08.05.2009, passed by the
first respondent rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, for renewal and
reschedule of installment facilities, to clear the dues pertaining to the period
12/2006 to 02/2008 and 07/2008 to 12/2008, on the ground, that the petitioner
had misled the Office, by stating that the employees’ share of Provident Fund
Contributions for the period 02/2009 and 03/2009 stood paid, whereas the amount
was only credited on 06.05.2009.
2. The petitioner was directed, to remit the amount upto the month
04/2009.
3. This Court, in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 in W.P.(MD)No.5056 of 2009,
on 17.06.2009 had passed the following order:-
“In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition, the petitioner averred that the first respondent has passed an order
dated 09.06.2008 granting 23 equal monthly installments to clear the outstanding
dues of Rs.22,80,397/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred
and Ninety Seven only) and the petitioner had started complying with the said
order and paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month from the
month of April 2008. The petitioner further submitted a letter dated 14.03.2009
praying for some time so as to enable them to pay the outstanding installments
and monthly installment from the month of April 2009 regularly as they are
taking emergent steps to mobilize the funds, but all of a sudden, without any
notice, the respondents have rejected the requisition for installment facility
and called upon them to remit all the dues upto the month of April 2009 and also
threatening them with recovery action without further notice. The petitioner
also averred that the first respondent has already issued notice under Section 8
F of the Employees Provident Fund Act on 11.03.2009 to freeze the accounts of
the petitioner.
2. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner also.
3. Taking into consideration the averments made in the affidavit and
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the
order of interim stay. There will be an order of interim stay of the impugned
notice of demand in No.M-8/TN/10314/ENF.”B”/RO/ MD/09 dated 08.05.2009 issued by
the first respondent for a period of four weeks.
4. Notice through court as well as privately is permitted returnable
by then.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to serve
notice on the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents”.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contends, that the writ
petition has been rendered infructuous, as the prayer of the petitioner is to
grant 29 installments, and the period in which these were to be paid has already
expired. This cannot be accepted, for the reason, that this Court had stayed
the recovery proceedings, therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner,
in not depositing the amount within the period asked for.
5. In view of the fact that the petitioner wants to deposit the
contribution and the object of the respondents is also to collect the
contribution for the benefit of the employees, this Writ Petition is disposed
of, by giving liberty to the petitioner, to pay the amount in SIX equated
monthly installments, commencing from October 2011. It is made clear, that if
the amount is not paid in SIX equated monthly installments, or any default is
committed in payment of installment, it will be open to the respondents, to
proceed with recovery proceedings, in accordance with law.
No costs.
Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 is closed.
Dpn/-