Palaniappan v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.11.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.37312 of 2015 1.Palaniappan 2.Sundhari 3.Elayapandy 4.Savithri 5.Kutappan 6.Kamalam 7.Veerakutty 8.Kali 9.Perumal 10.Chinnaponnu 11.Sangaralingam 12.Saroja 13.Nallu 14.Balraj 15.R.Samuthram 16.M.Ramar 17.Jeya 18.K.Jothimani 19.Balan 20.Vasantha 21.Shanmugathai 22.Kunjamma 23.N.Raju 24.Jeyamary 25.Krishnamma 26.Annathai 27.R.Ramar 28.R.Mariammal 29.O.Karuppasamy 30.C.Anthonysamy 31.Muniyaandi ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Commissioner The Regional Provident Fund Officer Bhavisya Nidhi Bhavan, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore.

2. The Manager Alen Farm Emerald Valley Estate Emerald Post, The Nilgiris 643209.

... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to recover the default/due of Provident Fund of petitioners with damage and interest by due process of law from the 2nd respondent by disposing of the representations given by the petitioners dated 25.03.2015 as expeditiously as possible. For Petitioners :

Mr.P.V.selvarajan for Mr.R.Aranganathan For Respondents : Mr.K.Gunasekar, SCGSC for R1

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners ; Mr.K.Gunasekar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel accepting notice on behalf of the 1st respondent and with their consent, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Since the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with. 2.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to recover the default/due of Provident Fund of petitioners with damage and interest by due process of law from the 2nd respondent by dispose the representations given by the petitioners dated 25.03.2015.

3.

The petitioners are said to be the employees of the 2nd respondent/Company and they have submitted a representation to the 1st respondent to recover the dues payable by the Management towards their Provident Fund. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent has not initiated any action on their representation dated 25.03.2015. In terms of the provisions of

the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, there is a duty cast upon the Management to pay the Provident Fund and in the event of a default, the 1st respondent is statutorily bound to take appropriate action. However, since the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, without notice to the 2nd respondent, the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner as against the 2nd respondent are not gone into and left open to be decided by the 1st respondent, who is the competent authority.

4.

In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 25.03.2015 on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners or their authorised representative as well as the 2nd respondent / Management and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To

1. The Commissioner The Regional Provident Fund Officer Bhavisya Nidhi Bhavan, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore.

+1cc to Mr.K.Gunasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.63764 +2cc's to Mr.R.Aranganathan, Advocate, S.R.No.63841 W.P.No.37312 of 2015 RSI(CO) CA(10/12/2015)