1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.622, 633 and 634 of 2011 Sri Jeyandra Swamigal Silver Jubilee Matriculation Higher Secondary School 2nd Main Road, Maharajanagar Tirunelveli – 627 011 Rep. By its Correspondent, Jayendran ..Appellant/Petitioner in W.A.No.622 M/s.Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills, Mallanginaru Virudhunagar, Rep. By its General Manager ... Appellant/Petitioner in W.A.No.633 M/s.Thangam Vilas Oil Mill 109/2E, Ettayapuram Road, Thoothukudi District, By its Leaseholder M.Kasi ... Appellant /Petitioner in W.A.No.634 vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Sub Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan NGO “B” Colony, Perumalpuram Post Tirunelveli – 627 007 ... Respondent/Respondent in W.A.Nos.622 & 634 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner EPF Organisation, Regional Office, Chokkikulam, Madurai. - 2 ... Respondent/Respondent in W.A.No.633 Writ Appeals filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act against the orders passed by the Hon'ble Lordship Mr.S.Nagamuthu, made in W.P.(MD) Nos.8950 of 2008, 10081 of 2008 and 10106 of 2008 dated 02.12.2010 on the file of this Court. PRAYER IN WP(MD)No.8950 OF 2008: Petitionfiled under Article 226 of the Consitution of India, praying the issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent made in his proceedings in file nO. TN/TNY/20861/ENF/Circle/16/14204/2008, dated 12.09.2008 and quash the same and consequently for bear the respondent, his men, subordinate, staff agents and servants from in any way taking steps agains the petitneor regarding applicability of EPF Act and payment of contributiontill https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 inspection or appointed by the appropriate state Government by issuing notification unde the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. PRAYER IN WP(MD)No. 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent made in his proceedings in file no. M6/TN/MD/5058, Enf”C”/Mdu/Ro 2008, dated 156.10.2008 and quash the same and consequently for bear the respondents his men, subordinate, staff agents and servants fromin any way taking steps against the petitioner regarding applicatbility of EPF Act, and payment of contribution till inspectors are appointed by the appropriate state Government by issuing notification under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provison Act 1952. PRAYER IN WP(MD)No. 10106 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitutionof India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorariied Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent made in his proceedings in File No. TN/TNY/20781/Enf/Circle/22/22069/2008 diated 16.10.2008 and quash the same and consequently for ber the respondents steps against the petitioner regarding applicability of EPF Act and payment of contribution till inspectors are appointed by the appropriate state Government by issuing notification under the Employees Privident funds and Miscellaneous Act 1952. For Appellants .. Mr.S.Silambanan, Senior Counsel For Respondents .. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI, J.) These Writ Appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(MD) Nos.8950 of 2008 etc., batch, dated 02.12.2010, by which, the learned Judge, while setting aside the adjudication order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, on the basis that the principles of natural justice has been violated, has remitted the matters to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to decide afresh under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that while they are prepared to go before the Commissioner, the seizure has been effected by the Inspector as per the powers under Section 7(A) of the above said Act, which was without jurisdiction and when the learned Single Judge has found in the impugned judgment that the seizure effected by the Inspector at that time was without jurisdiction, those documents which were seized cannot be considered on remittance by the respondent, namely, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. But, admittedly, as on date, such power of seizure to the Inspector cannot be questioned by the petitioners. However, the apprehension of the writ petitioners is that when the authority, who has made a seizure at that time, had no jurisdiction and reliance placed on by the adjudicating authority will be improper. On the face of it, We do not accept the said contention. What the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has stated, is that he has remitted the matters back to the adjudicating authority on the ground that principles of natural justice is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 violated. While saying so, a finding has been given to the effect that the seizure effected by the authority, at that time was not proper and without jurisdiction. In such view of the matter, we only confirm the orders of the learned Single Judge. While dismissing the writ appeals, We make the following observations: (i) on such remittance of the matters back to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, as per the order of the learned Judge, it is open to the appellants to raise the relevancy of the documents, which were seized earlier, including the question as to whether reliance can be placed by the department on such documents on the basis that at the time of seizure, the authority, who has seized, had no jurisdiction. (ii) there is a finding by the learned Judge that the genuineness of the documents seized was not questioned by the writ petitioners at the time of adjudication, the authority is entitled to consider as to whether the documents seized are genuine or relevant for the purpose of considering the issues. With such liberty the appeals stand dismissed and all other rights available to the appellants to be adjudicated before the adjudicating authority are left open. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd ASST REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR RR To: 1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Sub Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan NGO “B” Colony, Perumalpuram Post Tirunelveli – 627 007 2.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner EPF Organisation, Regional Office, Chokkikulam, Madurai. - 2 1CC TO TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 27422: 2CC'S TO MR G.R. SWAMINATHAN,ADVOCATE, SR: 27553: DM:2011:AUGUST:29:: Judgments Made in WA(MD) Nos.622, 633 and 634 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2011 11.08.2011 3P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/