ABCOY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same company and it is a partnership company by name ABCOY. The challenge is made to the order dated 31. 5. 2004 for levying damages under Section 14b of the Employees provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. M. Aravind Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. S. V. Venkateshwaran,learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

(3.) IN W. P. No. 2274 of 2004, the petitioner in attacking the impugned order, submitted that the impugned order is unreasonable and is not a speaking order. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment reported in MMRDA officers ASSN. KEDARNATH RAO GHORPADE v. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGIONAL development AUTHORITY (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 235. Learned counsel refers to para 5 of the judgment, which is as follows:-