THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32793 of 2014 Dated : 31.10.2014 Between:
Umakant Agarwal S/o.Laxman Lal, Aged about 59 yrs, Employer of Paro Food Products, Mir Alam Tank, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner And Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32793 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner was the Managing partner of M/s.Paro Food Products. Alleging that huge amounts of provident fund contributions towards the employees of M/s.Paro Food Products, were not paid, proceedings were initiated under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the ‘EPF Act’), resulting in passing orders under Section 7(A) of the EPF Act. On account of inordinate delay in making payments, further proceedings were initiated levying interest under Section 7(Q) and damages under Section 14(B) of the EPF Act. The orders were passed long back and were not complied with. Having taken sufficient steps to recover the amounts due under the EPF Act, in exercise of power vested by the Act, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.09.2014 calling for his explanation as to why warrant of arrest should not be issued against him and also to appear on 15.09.2014 which is assailed in this writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings of imposing damages and interest were not served on the petitioner and only when an application is filed by the petitioner after the impugned notice, the same were communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of such proceedings. He further submits that the partnership firm suffered huge loss and therefore, the operations were closed with effect from 01.12.2004 and factory is not running as of today.
3. As evident from the pleadings in the writ petition admittedly, so far the orders by which damages and interest were levied are not challenged even now and those orders have become final. The present notice is issued only in furtherance of the provisions of the EPF Act to recoup the amount payable by the petitioner as already quantified. Section 8(B) of the EPF Act, provides for issuance of certificate to the recovery Officer. On receipt of such certificate, the recovery Officer is competent to proceed against the employer in any one or more of the modes provided therein. One of the modes provided therein is arrest of the employer and his detention. In exercise of the said power the present notice is issued. Therefore, it cannot be said that the notice is without competence jurisdiction.
4. Even though sufficient opportunity was given by the respondent authorities, to pay the amounts due or to take legal course of action challenging the orders awarding interest and damages levied against the petitioner, petitioner kept quite. It is only a notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why warrant of arrest should not be issued. Therefore, I see no error in issuing notice which is assailed in this writ petition, warranting interference by this Court.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 31st October, 2014 Rds