Chinnamanur Municipality v. The Assistant Provident

ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner is a Municipality. The petitioner is running an establishment known as "Amma Unavagam". It is a welfare scheme announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It caters to the food security requirements of the economically poor. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, whereby even those employees working in Amma Unavagam have been brought within the purview of provident fund coverage. The first respondent had issued an order under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and claimed a sum of Rs.3,38,626/-. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

¶3A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶4The issue involved in this petition has already been decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.1295 of 2017, dated

24.07.2020. The relevant portion of the order dated 24.07.2020 is extracted hereinunder: "7. This definition had been interpretted in more than one decision of this Court and it has been interpreted to include even a seasonal employee. Therefore, I do not find any ground to sustain either of the contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. However, if there is any arithmetical or clerical error in the impugned order, it is always open to the writ petitioner herein to apply for review before the first respondent. If such review petition is filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same will be entertained by the first respondent and considered on merits without any reference to limitation.

¶8With this liberty, this Writ Petition stands dismissed."

¶5In terms of the order cited supra, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that if there is any arithmetical or clerical error in the impugned order, it is always open to the writ petitioner to apply for review before the 1st respondent. If such review petition is filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same will be entertained by the 1st respondent and considered on merits without any reference to limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

28.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr To

1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee's Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Post Box No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.

2.The Enforcement Officer, EPF Organisation, Regional Office, Post Box No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. W.P.(MD)oNo.22747oofo2016 BATTUoDEVANAND,oJ. abr W.P.(MD)oNo.22747oofo2016 Datedo:o28.07.2023 Pageo6oofo6

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.07.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND and W.M.P.(MD) No.16269 of 2016 Chinnamanur Municipality, Rep., by its Commissioner, Chinnamanur, Theni District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee's Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Post Box No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 2.The Enforcement Officer, EPF Organisation, Regional Office, Post Box No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent herein in his proceedings in File No.MD/MDU/91182/Enf 'C'/Circle-13/13012/2016, dated 03.08.2016 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.K.Muralisankar Standing Counsel