Telangana High Court
WP/34558/2011 of Toddy Tapper Co-Operative Society, Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization on 29 December 2011
VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34558 of 2011 Dt:- 29.12.2011 Between:- Toddy Tapper Co-operative Society, Rep. by its President G.Vittal Goud. … Petitioner and Employees Provident Fund Organization, rep. by its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and antoher …
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.34558 of 2011
Dt:- 29.12.2011
-Between:
Toddy Tapper Co-operative Society,Rep. by its President G.Vittal Goud.
… Petitionerand
Employees Provident Fund Organization, rep. by its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and antoher … Respondents This Court made the following:- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKARWRIT PETITION No.34558 of 2011
ORDER: -
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned StandingCounsel for the respondents.
The writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by therespondents, dated 15.07.2011, to show cause why arrest warrantshould not be issued against the petitioner as well as further notice,dated 04.11.2011, fixing the enquiry under Section 7-A of theEmployees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(for short, “the Act”) to 14.11.2011, by raising a specific contention thatunder Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner, being a Co-operative Society,is not covered by the said Act and that entire proceedings initiated underSection 7-A of the Act is without jurisdiction.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, pointsout that the petitioner’s Society has already been allotted codeNo.AP/47156, which prima facie supports the coverage, and now that enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act is pending, petitioner’s Society isrequired to participate and raise their contentions, which they want toraise.
It is apparent that petitioner was allotted a code number sometime in the past, which prima facie shows the coverage of the petitioner. However, on the date of enquiry on the notice whether petitioner iscovered under the Act by virtue of Section 16 of the Act or otherwise, isa matter which requires adjudication by the authority conducting enquiryunder Section 7-A of the Act. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty toraise all their contentions including the aspect of coverage before theauthority, which is conducting Section 7-A enquiry, and seekadjudication on the aspects raised by them. The 2[nd] respondent, who isseized of the said enquiry, shall deal with all such objections raised bythe petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance withlaw. To the extent of holding of Section 7-A enquiry, therefore, infirmityat this stage is not discernible. However, to the extent of the showcause notice for arrest is concerned, I find it wholly unnecessary for the2[nd] respondent to issue such a notice to the petitioner. The said notice,therefore, shall not be given effect to, pending adjudication of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that thepetitioner shall co-operate with the proposed enquiry; shall not seekunnecessary adjournments; and ensure expeditious disposal of the saidenquiry.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the 2[nd]respondent to permit the petitioner to raise all contentions they intend toraise and adjudicate upon the matter under Section 7-A of the Act inaccordance with law expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________
Note:
Issue C.C. in three days.{B/o} lmv
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.34559 of 2011
lmv
29.12.2011