IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL,O.i§E:»_'~..vv
OATEO THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEi\/EBER_.,2;i:?id_9fPT'
BEFORE CC C
THE HOi\E'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.:"iKU:MCA'RAS'WA/M'?
WRIT PETITION E\lo..'V3>_'~3~."$,:'/"-..'3'.»E)€JIA'>.V'(Lj--Pi?')f_,
BETWEEN: C C
M/s Canbank Financial ServicesALinTi'ted,.._"'*
Kareem Towers, 19/S»& 19/6,"-ff .,
Cunningham Road,Ba.nVga!O:re~:56'O
Represented by i'_t.s"--E><CejVC_c__u_tivje_ _DiIfeC--t'Off .
Sri V. Srinivasari._ ,: Petitioner
(By Sri Irfana, A.dy,'C"i';:rV._i?i,'s"8anga!ore Law Associates)
AND: C C A
1. The Union of India,~._
Mini stry Vof--."i;.a ob U r,
Sh a rima S h akt hi 'Bh a Va n ,
New ' De In i.+{i-- .1 (3 G9 1,
v By its Se'creia":fy
The Centra"i~.Provident Fund Commissioner,
-- i,",'f33'%'."*"'Fioor, Mayor Bhavan,
2 'Cof_nnVa'u'ght Circle,
M;-w,_D»ei.i1i--11O 001.
$3,],-
under Section-7Q of the EPF Act. Therefore once
imposing levy of interest at 12% under
separately is iliegai. The petitioner is levied,~ir:te:i*e:st:twice"
both under Section-7Q and under Se._ction'A.7i.-#9~..Br-.of-
Act. Therefore Section-7Q is bad in lax:/ii'.-._ ;i\£oV'd'isj§:re.tVio'h
vested with the respondent the
damages. The third resporiden’*ti__ri}ashurriedly. The
impugned order at Aii«n_exu:r’e¥1ii 12.12.2002.
The petitioner under Ruie-
7(2) of 1997. But the
appeai is nivotpiiani Therefore the
petitioner ‘Section-7Q of the EPF Act as
ui1i’coi=i.9tit’otioi1’ai ‘a.nd taset aside the Circular No.12 dated
29.S’L3..9:’9_8u vij.y,:’.the second respondent vide Annexure-
to”-«4setf.__va’s.id~e2the order dated 12.12.2002 passed by
2 r__es.p’oi1dent vide Annexure-A.
petitioner be directed to exhaust the alternate
available under law.
4. I have heard the learned cou’riAsel’for,
as well as learned counsel for the respond’e_nts. ” ”
5. Normally the cons_t.itutioVn.alV:A”tra’ii.dity.’oi«:t_het.vEstatute
will be challenged if by the
Legislature, if it isyieiative;ief ag :fueVeiementeitight or if it is
ultra vires the of the Legislature in
question. if the Court finds that
the Legisla’ture.’_ ‘beyond its power or
competence orllin_tra.n’5gAr’essi.on of limits imposed by the
i.tself._,_’sulchwanenactment is called a colourable
legisVlat’iVo_n.V«i’ iti’f«..itvhejjLe~gislature enacts the law in the pretext
the exercise .ofAthe legislative power though actually it
l”4″do4es:’r1otpossess such power, the legislation to that extent
yoi’d’._lo’r”becomes voidabie on a deciaration to that effect
Constitutional Court. In the instant case, the learned
ex
counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out these aspects
whether the law made or the Circular is violative,..oif-.._:th_e
fundamental rights or the Legislature did not
to pass such legislation. Further this Cotlrt i’nW\’l\1ir’:i.tf,»?et.i’tion._ ‘Au
Nos.5810/2006 and 35359/2oo3il, lii_a§,i. iliphlélali
constitutional validity of Sectior:lvgj”‘~…_7-QA”‘of Act. ” ll
Therefore the contentionsVrazised_.b’y’:.t_h–e””l»earned’counsel for
the petitioner that the4″V.a’lidit’}’ 7-«Q is
unconstitutional ha.s~no’jfor£:_e and the”vsjat’n_’e”Vjis rejected.
6. On p_erl.lsaVl”lof~th?e objection of the Respondent No.3,
it is clear that thepvetit_ion.e~r::’i*l»sas preferred an appeal before
th4_eV.’Appe§fl.g”tve~ Aut’h”or:it_y_._. Even in the writ petition,
pe’ti.tione{..gha§~..r;ie’nti.oned that he has got 60 days time t_o
an lalapleail ‘giaaieriaule 7(2) of the EPF Appellate Tribunal
199’7.v$”A’;_53lv.lt it is his contention that appeal is not an
remedy. The Appellate Tribunal which deals
‘ the EFF Act is specialised in examining the levy of
:*tl’*int.erest and also the damages. But in the instant case,
if,
result of that appeal has not been furnished to this Court.
EPF Act provides for the institution of compulsory Provident
(pension) Fund and Deposit-linked Insurance
benefit of the employees in factories~””‘§fid:Jiotherlé
establishments. Such being the case,, thei::jon’tention'”of-..the_:A
learned counsel for the petitione’r_th_at not
interest or the damages when proi/i«cled_.:§for the
same has no force and This Writ
Petition is dexl/oid .ofi:”in_erii;’sV’V’anfi3 “is liable to be
dismissed.
7. In viéwloflll’ discussion, I pass the
fo4llnwing_»:’5;,
is dismissed.
Sd/-*
JUDGE