IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.49421 OF 2018 (L-PF) BETWEEN:
M/s. The Church of South India Trust Association CSI Karnataka Southern Diocese Office Balmatta, Mangaluru-575 002 Rept. By its Treasurer Sri. Vincent Palanna ... Petitioner (By Sri. Sachin B.S, Advocate) AND:
1. The EPF Organisation Regional Office Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan PB No.572, Highlands Silva Road, Mangaluru-575 002 Represented by its Regional Commissioner.
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Regional Office Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan PB No.572, Highlands Silva Road, Mangaluru-575 002. ... Respondents (By Sri. B. Pramod, Advocate for R2 Notice to R1 is served.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 14.6.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 as per Annexure-A and order dated 14.6.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 7Q of the EPF &b MP Act, 1952 as per Annexure-B and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
ORDER Though the matter has come up for hearing on I.A.No.1/2019 filed by the petitioner. With consent of the learned counsel from both the sides, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a unit of Church of South India Trust Association, Chennai and having its office at Mangaluru. Further it is contended that the officers of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization visited the office of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to join EPF scheme. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Diocesan has a better retirement scheme which is more beneficial to the employees than the provident fund scheme. Nevertheless, the petitioner agreed to become a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and accordingly, a separate code was assigned to the petitioner on 15.07.2017.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 – The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 14(B) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the “Act” for short) quantifying the damages at Rs.9,05,801/- and further quantifying the interest at Rs.4,58,728/- under Section 7Q of the Act.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though an appeal remedy is available before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, there was no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal. The petitioner having no other alternative, has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
5. This Court had granted interim order on 20.11.2018 directing the respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 24.01.2019, this Court granted two weeks’ time to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority and the benefit of the interim order was extended for a period of two weeks.
6. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and an application is also made seeking interim direction. In that view of the matter, the present petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that protection needs to be given to the petitioner till the application of the petitioner is considered by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for a period of two weeks with a hope that Appellate Authority will consider the application filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks.
8. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY.