Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
HOSDURG SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5997 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.), SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA, SHRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.)
For the Respondents: SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SRI.K.R.SUNIL
The necessity of exhausting available statutory remedies before seeking judicial review under writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:This case involved the applicability of Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, through which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concluded that the Co-operative Bank was liable for statutory dues. The Court found that the Co-operative Bank should have appealed under Section 7-I rather than pursue this writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Bank to file a statutory appeal, with certain provisions regarding timelines and proceedings.| The primary issue was whether the Co-operative Bank could challenge the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's order directly through a writ petition. The Court reasoned that the appellate remedy provided under the Act was necessary to resolve factual disputes properly.| The final outcome ordered the Co-operative Bank to file a statutory appeal under Section 7-I, and the request for a stay of further proceedings was granted until the Appellate Tribunal hears the matter.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicability of section 7a and filing procedures (Para 1) |
| 2. need for appellate remedy under section 7-i (Para 2) |
| 3. court's directives for appeal and staying proceedings (Para 3) |
J U D G M E N T
The Petitioner Co-operative Bank approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P10 proceedings of the 1st respondent – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The proceedings were under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952, (‘the Act’ for brevity). By the impugned proceedings, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner rejected various contentions raised by the Petitioner – Co-operative Bank and concluded that the Bank was not eligible for exemption under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner further found that the Petitioner – Bank was liable to remit the dues on account of the Provident Fund, Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Fund and Administrative Charges towards Provident Fund and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Fund for the period from 01.01.1999 and also to submit statutory returns. The order was passed on
29.01.2016. This writ petition was filed shortly thereafter.
2. I have perused Ext.P10 order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Act. It shows that several legal and factual contentions were raised before the Commissioner and the Commissioner has addressed contentions elaborately. Though the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act was available to the Co-operative Bank, instead of availing the said statutory remedy, the petitioner filed the above writ petition. This Court granted stay and therefore, the operation of Ext.P10 order has remained suspended since 2016.
3. On a perusal of Ext.P10 and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, I am of the view that this matter should have been taken up before the Appellate Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Section 7-I of the Act. Several factual disputes are also involved and the proper authority to consider such issues was the Appellate Tribunal. I note that this writ petition was filed shortly after issuance of Ext.P10, well within the limitation period, stipulated under the Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules for filing appeals under Section 7-I of the Act. Hence, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:
(i) The Petitioner – Co-operative Bank shall file a statutory appeal under Section 7-I of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal against Ext.P10 order, within a period of one month from today.
(ii) The period of pendency of this writ petition shall be excluded from calculating the time taken for filing the appeal.
(iii) The Appellate Tribunal shall consider the appeal, if it is in order and proceed in accordance with law.
(iv) The contentions of the parties are kept open to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal.
(v) Till the Appellate Tribunal takes up the appeal, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance.
This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
