IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE31T DAY OF JANUARY201411TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 21473 of 2013 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------- MUTHOOT COMMODITIES LIMITED IST FLOOR, ALPHA PLAZA, K.P. VALLON ROAD KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND DESIGNATED DIRECTOR RAGESH G.R. BY ADVS.SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CORE-2, 4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110 092.
2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685A, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN P.B.NO.1985, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN,SC,EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON3101-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21473 of 2013 (H) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.KR/KC.24770/ENF.I(2)/2011/5524 DATED108.2011 ISSUED BY2D RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.KR/KC/24770/ENF.I(2)/2011/11374 DATED1412.2011 ISSUED BY2D RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ON21.2012. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.KR/KC/24770/ENF.I(2)/2012/1266 DATED115.2012 ISSUED BY2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT
DATED156.2012 IN WPC NO.13917 OF2012OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER
DATED24.2013 IN ATA NO.552(7)/2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.KR/KC/24770/ENF.I(2)/2013/9851 DATED2510.2013 ISSUED BY2D RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 21473 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of January, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner admittedly is covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner also had been paying contributions under the Act; but however, on the basic wages, as the petitioner has a contention that it is only on basic wages that the contributions are to be made by the employer and deducted from the employee. On a perusal of Ext.P2, it is seen that the register maintained by the petitioner disclose two components being basic wages and "total earnings". It is not discernible as to what the "total earnings" were comprised of. In any event, the Assessing Officer included the "total earnings" also to assess the contribution payable and to be assessed under the WPC.21473/2013 :
2. : Act; and directed payment of contribution on that basis.
2. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed a review and then approached the Tribunal with an appeal as directed by this Court in Ext.P5. The Tribunal remanded the matter. Ext.P6 is the remand order which is assailed in the above writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal concluded that the components taken into account are not to be covered under the Act. However, I do not see any such finding in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal merely referred to the contention of the petitioner and directed the Assessing Officer to look into such contentions. In fact, even the contentions are not properly referred to by the Tribunal and after a haphazard statement of facts, remanded the matter. Even going by Ext.P2 order, there is nothing to show what the component of total earnings is, nor does the WPC.21473/2013 :
3. : writ petition disclose it. In any event, Ext.P6 is only a remand order and does not enter into any findings. It can only be taken as an order directing the Assessing Officer to look into the components which were included in the head "total earnings" and to arrive at definite conclusion as to how they would be covered under the provisions of the Act. That, definitely, would have to be substantiated by the petitioner before the Authority. Writ petition, hence, is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge