IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 15.07.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NO.14534 to 14536 OF 2003 R.JAYACHANDRAN ...Petitioner ( in W.P.NO.14534 of 2003) P.CHOCKALINGAM, ...Petitioner ( in W.P.NO.14535 of 2003) P.VENUGOPAL, ...Petitioner (in WP No. 14536 of 2003) Vs. 1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Shree Complex 'D' Block, No.18,Madurai Road, Trichy - 8 2. Thanjavur Sarvodhaya Sangh, rep.by its Secretary, No.9 Kambatta Viswanathar Koil Street, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District-612 001. ...Respondents (in WP Nos.14534 to 14536/2003) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the First Respondent to recover the arrear of Provident Fund amount with interest from the date of retirement due from the Second Respondent under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi For Respondent : No Appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER The petitioners are the employees under the second respondent, a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 2. The second respondent is under the financial control and assistance of the Khadhi and Village Industries Commission. The petitioner in each one of the case joined the services of the second respondent. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the 92nd General Body held on 11.4.2002, they were relieved from service. 3. Insofar as the present cases are concerned, according to the petitioners, the provident fund contribution remitted by the second respondent to the first respondent was settled in September 2002. The petitioners were informed that the Secretary of the second respondent has not remitted the entire contribution to the first respondent. On coming to know of such discrepancies and failure in remittance, the petitioners issued legal notice and called upon the first respondent to recover the arrears payable by the second respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent has taken some action and the second respondent made the remittance. Such remittance was made in the year 2004 after filing of the present writ petitions. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that on remittance of the balance amount by the second respondent in the year 2004, the petitioners were paid. The learned counsel for the petitioners now submits that the main relief sought for in these three writ petitions are satisfied in view of the remittance by the second respondent pending the writ petitions. He however states that the details of the actual amount remitted by the second respondent to the first respondent, Provident Fund Authority is not available and the petitioners are unable to verify as to whether the correct amount has been remitted and paid. To this extent, there is some doubt. 5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents, though the respondents have already been served. 6. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that consequent to the filing of these two writ petitions, remittance towards arrears of provident fund were made by the second respondent and received by the petitioners, the main relief of recovery of arrears of provident fund amount with interest stands resolved to some extent. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the details of the amount deposited with the first respondent has not been given. The petitioners are at liberty to make an application to the second respondent and to the first respondent along with a copy of this order and seek the required https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clarification or records so as to satisfy themselves as to whether the provident fund arrears and interest and such other lawful claims have been duly settled by the second respondent and has been paid over to the petitioners. 7. Since the main relief sought for in the writ petition has already been granted by the respondents, though after the filing of the writ petitions, no further direction is required for recovery of the arrears of the provident fund amount. The petitioners are permitted to file an application to get the details of the remittance so as to work out their remedy in accordance with law and the respondents shall furnish the same within a reasonable time. These three writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Shree Complex 'D' Block, No.18,Madurai Road, Trichy - 8 2. The Secretary, Thanjavur Sarvodhaya Sangh, No.9 Kambatta Viswanathar Koil Street, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District-612 001. WP Nos.14534 to 14536 of 2003 SR(CO) RVL 04.08.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/