BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 08/09/2011
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
W.P.(MD)No.6839 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008
M/s. Vallimurugan Tile Works,
Sankarankoil Road,
Aladipatti, Surandai - 627 895,
Tirunelveli District,
rep. by its Proprietor ...... Petitioner
Vs
1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
NGO "B" Colony,
Tirunelveli - 627 007.
2. Enforcement Officer,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
District Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
NGO "B" Colony,
Perumalpuram Post,
Tirunelveli - 627 007. ....... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in
any manner taking action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned
order No.TN/TNY/33469/Enf/Circle 12/8F0076/2008, dated 14.07.2008 and
consequential Show Cause Notice No.TN/TNY/33469/EO(VM)/2008 dated 18.07.2008
during the pendency of the Appeal submitted before the Hon'ble EPF Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi by the petitioner.
!For Petitioner ... Mr. P. Srinivas
^For Respondents ... Mr. K. Murali Sankar
- - - - - --
:ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance
of a Writ, in the nature of Prohibition, restraining the respondents, from
taking action against the petitioner, to enforce the order dated 14.07.2008,
passed under Section 7-A of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), by impugned
proceedings of recovery.
2. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner has filed an Appeal
against the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act, vide ATA 492(13)/2008
(M/S.VALLIMURUGAN TILE WORKS ..VS.. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND
ANOTHER).
3. The remedy with the petitioner, is to approach the learned
Appellate Tribunal, for grant of stay against the execution of the order
appealed.
4. This writ petition, is not competent, and is dismissed.
5. However, this order shall not bar the petitioner, from moving an
application, for stay before the Appellate Tribunal.
No costs.
Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 is closed.
Dpn/-