C.B. BLAKRISHNAN Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1051/2006 has filed this Revision Petition and also a petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The CRP is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Munsiff as per which the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit was held against the plaintiff. O.P. 1891/2013 was filed by the plaintiff challenging Ext P-1 order as per which the amendment of the plaint sought for by the plaintiff was disallowed in respect of the plea of fraud which was sought to be introduced by way of amendment The application was partly allowed with respect to the plea of limitation as against the proceedings initiated by the respondents for recovery of the amount by resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. M/s. Kerala Cultural Organization Board, Thiruvananthapuram is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act"). When the Act was first made applicable to the establishment, one Chandrakumar was shown as the owner of the establishment. Thereafter, on the request made by the plaintiff for allotment of a separate Code Number to the establishment, on the ground that the assets of the establishment had been transferred to him on 31-3-2000, a separate Code Number was allotted but on condition that it will not affect the date of initial coverage. A sum of Rs. 97,598.40 was assessed as the arrears of the amount payable by the employer towards the Fund for the period from 7/1995 to 1/1999. It was assessed under the Act. That amount was outstanding against M/s. Kerala Cultural Organization Board. Since the amount was not paid, the Authorised Officer issued recovery certificate to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the said amount.

(2.) Though originally Mr. Chandrakumar was the owner of the said establishment, subsequently the assets of the establishment were transferred to the plaintiff who is the petitioner herein. Based on the request made by the petitioner a separate Code Number KR/12719-A was allotted to the establishment with effect from 1-4-2000. It was done for administrative convenience. The new Code Number was allotted to him on the specific condition that it would not affect the date of original coverage of the establishment or entail any ground for its existence as separate entity for the purpose of the Act.

(3.) It is stated that the Recovery Officer, in exercise of the powers conferred under him under Sec. 8G of the Act, issued a notice on 26-6-2005 to the petitioner herein to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued against him for non-payment of the amount due; namely; Rs. 97598.40. On receipt of the notice he approached the Recovery Officer and requested two weeks' time and it was allowed. Thereafter, he filed the present suit for stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued to him. The learned Munsiff originally granted a temporary injunction restraining the recovery proceedings. On receipt of the order the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the defendant filed I.A. 7260/2006 challenging the maintainability of the suit. It was contended that as per Rule 9 of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, there existed a general bar to jurisdiction of civil courts except where fraud is alleged in recovery matters. Though that petition was originally dismissed by the learned Munsiff it was challenged before this Court by the defendant filing CRP 305/2007. This Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh hearing and disposal. After hearing the parties afresh the learned Munsiff passed the impugned order on 10-10-2012 holding that the suit is not maintainable. The above said order is challenged in this CRP.