BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21/02/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.1681 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.1855 Of 2006 Sahayamatha Salt Refinery Ltd, By its Director Sri.G.Nataraja Subramanian, No.13-A/1, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Meenakshipuram West, Tuticorin 628 002. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF Organisation, Sub - Regional Office, 10-A/3, St.Thomas Road, High Grounds, Tirunelveli 627 011. 2.The Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Harbour Extension Road, Tuticorin. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records leading to the issuance of impugned summons under Section 7-A of the E.P.F.Act, 1952 No TN/TNY/Circle.21/TH/46286/109, dated 30.01.2006 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to institute an inquiry to decide the dispute regarding the applicability of the E.P.F.Act to the petitioner and consequently forbearing the second respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of his communication No.TN/46286/EO/TUT/05 dated 01.12.2005. !For Petitioner ... Mr. L.N.V. Subramanian ^ :ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first
respondent dated 30.01.2006 under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund,
Act, 1952.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s organisation
does not come under the purview of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions, Act, 1952. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted an
application under Section 7-A (1) (a) of the said Act before the first
respondent herein to decide the dispute regarding the applicability of the said
Act to the petitioner’s organisation.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner has
submitted an application under Section 7-A (1) (a) of the Act before the first
respondent, without deciding the applicability of the Act to the petitioner’s
organisation, the first respondent has issued the notice under Section 7-A of
the Act calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry, which is nothing
but pre-supposing the liability of the petitioner’s organisation.
4. A reading of the impugned notice would show that the first respondent
has only directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry to determine the
amount due from the petitioner’s organisation and also the applicability of the
Act. Normally, this Court will not interfere with the same. However, considering
the fact that the petitioner has been consistently pleading that their
organisation will not come under the purview of the Act, I direct the first
respondent herein to decide as to whether the provisions of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions, Act, 1952 is applicable to the
petitioner’s organisation or not, conduct an enquiry as contemplated under the
Act and thereafter proceed further in accordance with Law.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P is closed. There is no order as to costs.
nbk
To
1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
EPF Organisation,
Sub – Regional Office,
10-A/3, St.Thomas Road, High Grounds,
Tirunelveli 627 011.
2.The Enforcement Officer,
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation,
Harbour Extension Road,
Tuticorin.