LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-480

KOVAI ERODE MAVATTA THIRAVIDA PANCHALAI THOZHILALAR MATTRUM NIRVAGA OOZHIYARGAL SANGAM Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

Decided On January 25, 2010
KOVAI ERODE MAVATTA THIRAVIDA PANCHALAI THOZHILALAR MATTRUM NIRVAGA OOZHIYARGAL SANGAM, (AFFILIATED TO LPF) REPRESENTED, SECRETARY K.NAGAMANICKAM Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, COIMBATORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a trade union. They have challenged the order dated 20.2.2009 issued by the second respondent- Recovery Officer attached to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and for a direction to provide adequate opportunity to the workmen belonging to the petitioner's Union employed in the third respondent mills in the matter of recovery of the arrears of Provident Fund contribution from the Management of third respondent mills. The petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition after noticing that there was a sale proclamation on 18.6.2009 and 16.10.2009 and subsequently publications are effected in two news papers on 22.10.2009. In that paper publication, the second respondent has stated that a sum of Rs.17,54,803/- is due to the P.F.Department from the third respondent mill and therefore the machineries were brought under auction as notified in the paper publication. The petitioner in their affidavit have stated that the P.F.Department has allowed the provident fund dues to be accumulated and if the machineries are sold from their existence, their employment will be lost and therefore they sought for present direction.

(2.) The claim of the petitioners from their employer vis-a-vis the dues payable to the P.F.Department came up for consideration by a recent Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in JT 2009 (13) SC 106 [Maharastra State Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner And Others],wherein in paragraph No.20, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

(3.) In the light of the same, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. It is for the petitioner to make appropriate claim before the Recovery Officer in case there are any dues. Otherwise, the dictum of Supreme Court will prevail. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.