THE DHARWAD MILK UNION vs. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.75953 OF 2013 [L-PF] BETWEEN: THE DHARWAD MILK UNION LAKKAMMANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD-580004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. K L PATIL ADV.) AND: THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION R/B REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER-II, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN NEW BLOCK NO.10 BEHIND INCOME-TAX OFFICE NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. P V GUNJAL ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: A. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED:31/12/2012 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION.

: 2 : B. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REFUND THE ADMITTED AMOUNT OF Rs.60,61,452/- WITH REASONABLE INTEREST OF 12% TILL ACTUAL PAYMENT. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - O R D E R An order passed against the petitioner, as at Annexure ‘A’, when questioned, was upheld by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New-Delhi, on 31.05.2011 vide Annexure ‘B’. During the pendency of the appeal ATA No.410(6)2011 before the Tribunal, petitioner’s account was attached and a sum of Rs.60,61,452/- was realised by the respondent. 2. The orders as at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’, were questioned by the petitioner in W.P. No.67333/2011. The writ petition was allowed on 24.09.2012 vide Annexure ‘D’. The demand made against petitioner by respondent was set aside. However, 2nd respondent was reserved with the

: 3 : liberty to pass an order in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioner. Since, the demand made in respect of orders at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ were quashed and the amount attached & realised, was not refunded, the petitioner having repeatedly represented to the respondent, at last, on 31.12.2012, the petitioner was informed vide Annexure ‘J’, that: “There is no specific direction from the High Court that the amount already deposited by the petitioner should be refunded in the order dated 24.09.2012”. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed to quash the said endorsement and for directing the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.60,61,452/- with interest. 3. Sri.K.L.Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that, since the action / demand of the respondent was held as unsustainable and was set aside in W.P. No.67333/2011(L-PF) on 24.09.2012, the

: 4 : respondent having hastily attached and recovered from the petitioner’s bank account, sum of Rs.60,61,452/-, the amount ought to have been refunded without any delay. He submitted that, despite the submission of the communications as at Annexures ‘E’, ‘F’ ‘G’ and ‘H’, there being arbitrariness on the part of the respondent and the impugned decision being illegal, interference in the matter is warranted. 4. Sri.P.V.Gunjal, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that, pursuant to the liberty reserved in the order as at Annexure ‘D’, further proceedings has been initiated and depending upon the final outcome, the respondents would regulate the matter. 5. Undeniably, W.P. No.67333/2011 was allowed on 24.09.2012 and the impugned orders were set aside. After the order at Annexure ‘A’ was passed during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the respondent attached and

: 5 : recovered Rs.60,61,452/- from the bank account of petitioner i.e., towards the amount payable in terms of the order at Annexure ‘A’. The order passed by the respondent as at Annexure ‘A’ having been set aside in the said writ petition, the natural consequence is that the petitioner should be refunded with the sum earlier attached and recovered i.e., Rs.60,61,452/-. Merely because, the order at Annexure ‘D’ did not indicate that the amount should be refunded, the respondent cannot withhold the same.

The decision of the respondent as at Annexure ‘J’ is arbitrary and hence, is unsustainable. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and respondent is directed to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs.60,61,452/-, within a period of two weeks from the date of copy of this order becomes available to it. However, the respondent is at liberty to act in accordance with law i.e., in terms of the order passed on

: 6 : 24.09.2012 in W.P. No.67333/2011. In case, the petitioner becomes liable to pay any sum to the respondent, i.e., after valid adjudication, petitioner shall not be liable to pay interest on the determined sum for the period from 24.09.2012, the date on which Writ Petition vide Annexure ‘D’ was decided, till the date of refund. No order as to costs. SD/- JUDGE Ct: BYG/- RK/-