No stay on Employees Provident Fund Organisation recovery proceedings against Gammon India

The Madras High Court has refused to stay the recovery proceedings of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation against Gammon India Ltd, which is handling Metro Rail project.
Madras High Court (File Photo | Express Photo Service)
Madras High Court (File Photo | Express Photo Service)

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to stay the recovery proceedings of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) against Gammon India Ltd, which is handling Metro Rail project.
Constitutional courts cannot usurp the powers of the competent authorities in the absence of any legally acceptable reason, Justice S M Subramaniam said recently.

The judge was disposing of a writ petition from Gammon, challenging the summons issued by the Regional Commissioner, EPF, Chennai, dated March 11, 2015. The issue pertains to payment of contribution towards the EPF by the company for all its eligible employees. It claimed that it was regularly remitting its contribution in respect of all its eligible employees.

In term of EPF scheme, the contribution was liable to be paid only on the basic pay, dearness allowance, cash value of food concessions and retaining allowances, if any. However, the EPFO demanded that the contribution should be based on all the allowances paid by the company, including conveyance, stipend, LTA, medical, dress reimbursement, cold room shift allowance, attendance incentive and meal allowances among others. The matter went to the Supreme Court, which passed interim orders saying that the PF commissioner may proceed to make the assessment but not to raise any demand. Subsequently, the commissioner issued impugned summons directing appearance of Gammon representatives for enquiry.
Aggrieved, the company challenged the summons in the High Court.

When the petition came up for hearing on May 3, after three years, the judge noted that what was challenged in the petition was only the summons issued to the company to appear for an enquiry. It is the duty mandatory on the part of the petitioner company to appear before the authorities and defend its case in accordance with the procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules. Contrarily, they have moved this petition challenging the very notice issued by the competent authorities and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, the judge said and dismissed it.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com