← Library
Madras High CourtWP/23057/2018disposed of

Cuddalore District Central v. The Chief Provident Fund

2018-09-05Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.09.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.NO.23057 of 2018 Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Limited rep.by its General Manager 1, Beach Road, Cuddalore - 1 ....

Petitioner Vs

1. The Chief Provident Fund Commissioner Royapettah High Road, Chennai-14.

2. The Enforcement Officer Employees Provident Fund Organisation Cuddalore II Division, Cuddalore.

3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Sree Complex, D Block, 18 Madurai Road Trchy 620 008.

....

Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from executing the order of the third respondent bearing No.TN/TR/4111/Exempted/RO-TRY/2018 dated 09.07.2018 till the statutory appeal filed before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Chennai is being heard by the Tribunal, Chennai is being heard by the Tribunal.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Arumugam

O R D E R

The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus seeking direction to the respondents not to execute the order of the third respondent dated 09.07.2018 till the statutory appeal filed before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is being heard by the tribunal.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is District Central Cooperative Bank, registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Act. The petitioner bank is covered under the Employees Provident Fund Act with code No.TN/4111 and the petitioner is also having a Employees Provident Fund Trust https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

approved by the respondents. Based on the report submitted by the second respondent, the third respondent conducted enquiry under section 7A of the Act and passed an order determining the amount payable at Rs.6,54,503/-. This is under challenge by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the post of presiding officer is vacant and therefore the appeal is not taken up for hearing, and making use of this opportunity, the respondents are trying to enforce the order. Therefore the petitioner prays for interference of this Court from restraining the respondents from executing the order of the third respondent dated 09.07.2018.

4. Admittedly, it is a fact that the post of Presiding Officer of the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is vacant till date. Hence, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the respondents are directed not to execute the order of the third respondent dated 09.07.2018 till the statutory appeal filed before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is taken up for hearing. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kst To

1. The Chief Provident Fund Commissioner Royapettah High Road, Chennai-14.

2. The Enforcement Officer Employees Provident Fund Organisation Cuddalore II Division, Cuddalore.

3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Sree Complex, D Block, 18 Madurai Road Trchy 620 008.

+1cc to Mr.R. Arumugam, Advocate SR.No.61102 W.P.No.23057 of 2018 GMY(24/09/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/