← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/21722/2015disposed of

M/S.Goldview Vyapaar (P) Ltd, Rep.By Authorised Signatory P.K.Singh v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

2015-07-20Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2015/29TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 21722 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------ M/S. GOLDVIEW VYAPAAR, (P) LTD., HOPE PLANTATIONS, CHARAMOM DIVISION, PEERMEDU, IDUKKI 685 531 REP.BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY P.K.SINGH BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS :

----------------------

1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

2. RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 21722 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE 7A PROCEEDINGS DATED 9.1.15 P2:

A COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.5.15 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21722 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 demand notice issued under the ESI Act. 2.

The petitioner is an establishment engaged in plantation business. The petitioner alleges that due to financial problems on account of the crisis prevailing in tea industry, there was delay on the part of the petitioner in remitting contribution under the Provident Fund Act. Thereafter, proceedings were finalized under Section 7(A) and based on that demand notice is now served on the petitioner. The statutory remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, since the amount demanded is not disputed by the petitioner. However, if reasonable time is granted, the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the outstanding in installments; it is alleged. 3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

W.P.(C) No. 21722 of 2015 -2and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in the matter.

As the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the limited prayer for installment facility, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to clear the entire liability within nine monthly installments commencing from 1.8.2015. It is hereby made clear that if the petitioner makes default in paying two monthly installments consecutively, it shall be open to the respondent Corporation to initiate coercive action against the petitioner. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE Scl.