IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.45876/2015 (L-PF) BETWEEN THE DHARWAD, HAVERI, GADAG & UTTARKANNADA DIST. CO-OPERATIVE MILK UNION LTD., LAKKAMMANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, P B ROAD, DHARWAD-580004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SURESH NAIK K N (BY SRI ABHINAV R, ADV.) AND 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 4TH FLOOR, CORE-2, SCOPE MINAR, LAKSHMINAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 092, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, “BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN”, ... PETITIONER ALAND ROAD, KALBURGI-585 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER.
3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II, “BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN”, NEW BLOCK-10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025.
4. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION “BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN”, NEW BLOCK-10 BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025.
(BY SMT. B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADV. FOR R1, ... RESPONDENTS SRI HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE NOTICE DTD.4.9.2015 BY THE R-3 AT ANNEX-G TO THE W.P. ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. The matter was called in the morning session.
Counsel for the petitioner sought for time.
2. This Court on perusing the impugned order observed that the same was merely a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish documents and submit a reply with regard to the omission to contribute to the employees pension fund. This Court taking note of the long passage of time from the date of issuance of notice, sought for information regarding the status of the proceedings. The matter was passed over.
3. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that the matter has been kept pending and no further action pursuant to the notice has been initiated in view of the pendency of the instant writ petition.
4. It is seen that no lis has arisen nor any right of the petitioner has been adjudicated. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this petition is premature.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as premature. All contentions are left open to the petitioner to be urged before the competent authority.
Sd/- JUDGE KK 28.08.2019 ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ Matter was heard and disposed off yesterday i.e. on 27.08.2019. Thereafter at the time of rising of the court the learned counsel for the petitioner made a mention and invited the attention of the court to Annexure-D to the writ petition and to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, Hassan Cooperative Milk Producers’ Association Union Limited Vs. Assistant Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation.
It is apparent that proceedings under Section 7A of the E.P.F. Act had been initiated against the establishment and after intervention by this court, the matter was remitted back and the authority after conducing a detailed proceedings has concluded that route contractors i.e. contractors who are transporting the milk from the establishment are not employees of the establishment and further was pleased to direct the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to ensure compliance by the establishments which had employed the drivers and loaders of the vehicles deployed by them for executing the transporting contract with the petitioner’s establishment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would also invite the attention of the court to the reply supplied to Annexure-F wherein they place reliance of the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The said factors do not in any manner derogate from the view expressed by this court earlier as the notice and the reply involves adjudication of factual aspects. No doubt one aspect of the matter i.e. the route contractors, has been settled. If the authority desires to look into the matter it needs to do so after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra and the earlier order of the authority dated 17.07.2015.
Hence, the operative portion of the order passed yesterday i.e. on 27.08.2019 requires to be modified. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as being pre- mature. Dismissal of the writ petition shall not be construed as a consideration of the matter on merits. Further a direction shall lie to the authority to take into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 2109 on order of the authority produced as Annexure-D to the writ petition before passing of any orders on the reply submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-F to the writ petition, the writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR