Neycer India Ltd., v. Recovery Officer

W.P.(MD) No.16184 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.16184 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD) No.12884 of 2019 Neycer India Limited, Factory and Administrative Office, Vadalur-607303, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu Represented by its Authorised Manager P.Saravanakumar S/o.Paranthaman

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Recovery Officer, Office of the Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Regional Office, P.B.No.588, Shree Complex, 'D' Block No.18, Madurai Road, Trichy-08.

2.The Chairman Central Board of Trustees, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shramshakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

... Respondents (R-2 is impleaded vide order dated 29.07.2019 made in W.M.P(MD) No.13353 of 2019) P RAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the respondent in No.Recovery/CB/ RO-TRY/3967/521/AD-14 B-2019 dated 10.07.2019 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For Respondents : Mr.G.Dharmaraja

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD) No.16184 of 2019 2.The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed under Section 14(B) of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The impugned order is a consequential order passed when the employer defaults in making the contribution of the provident fund or pension fund or insurance fund, as the case may be. As against the order passed under Section 14(B) of the Act, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal before the Tribunal under Section 7(I) of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 3.The grounds raised in the present writ petition touches upon the factual aspects and this Court may not be justified in adjudicating such factual aspects, when the petitioner requires to file a statutory appeal. Nevertheless, if the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal by extending the limitation period, the ends of justice could be secured. As such, no interference is required to the present impugned order passed under Section 14(B) of the Act.

4.In the light of the above observations, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the concerned Tribunal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.With the above liberty, this Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. +1 CC to M/s.B.JAMEEL ARASU,Advocate ( SR-12086[I] dated 23/07/2019 +1 CC to M/s.B.JAMEEL ARASU,Advocate ( SR-12516[I] dated 30/07/2019 +1 CC to M/s.B.JAMEEL ARASU,Advocate ( SR-14635[I] dated 03/09/2019 W.P.(MD) No.16184 of 2019 11.03.2021 SJ(CO) KB(26.05.2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2