V. PANDISELVAM Vs. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to disburse the EPF amount due and payable to the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation submitted in person dated 16.08.2016 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) The petitioner was employed at Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd. Murudeshwar Bhavan, Hubli, Karnataka State and for the amount due to him, he has made a representation to the 1st respondent in person on 16.08.2016. As the said representation is not considered, he has come forward with this writ petition.

(3.) Merely because the petitioner is residing at Madurai, that does not mean this Court has jurisdiction to direct the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner dated 16.08.2016 which has been made to EPF authorities at Hubli, Karnataka State. In this regard, it is relevant to consider the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in E. Mary Oliviya Vs. E. Jsohua Milton, reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 1012, wherein, the Division Bench has categorically held that mere residence of the petitioner cannot clothe the court with jurisdiction unless part of cause of action had arisen in the said place.