Vasavi Florex Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.

Vasavi Florex vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Jul 16, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/388378

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/388378
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: H.V.G. Ramesh, J.
Decided On: Jul 16, 2007
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 24517 of 2005
Subject: Labour and Industrial
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993 [K.A. No. 14/1993]. Sections 12(h) & 43(A); [B.S. Patil, J] Disqualification of a member of Grama Panchayat Held, Under Section 12(h) of the Act, even if a member has indirectly got any share or any interest in the work done by the order of the Grama Panchayat or in any contract ...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vasavi Florex

Advocate S.R. Shivaprakash, Adv.

Respondent

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.

Advocate P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Adv. for Respondents-1 to 3 and ;M.C. Narasimhan, Adv. for Respondent-4

Legal References

Acts: Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7A
Reported In: [2008(116)FLR28]; 2007(6)KarLJ317; (2008)ILLJ234Kant

Excerpt

- karnataka panchayat raj act, 1993 [k.a. no. 14/1993]. sections 12(h) & 43(a); [b.s. patil, j] disqualification of a member of grama panchayat held, under section 12(h) of the act, even if a member has indirectly got any share or any interest in the work done by the order of the grama panchayat or in any contract on behalf of the grama panchayat it will incur disqualification for a member. section 43(a) of the act provides for removal of a member for misconduct. in the instant case, there was material on record to show that the petitioner received amount in his name by way of cheque from the grama panchayat. it is fully justified in holding that the petitioner was involved in the misconduct of having an interest in the contract work entrusted by the grama panchayat. the contention of denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his case, is not proper. - in the impugned ordered passed by the authorities at annexure-b and c it is observed that a new method has been adopted to grow flowers by using fused rock under the advanced form of agriculture by adopting drip irrigation in order to achieve greater produce and merely because soil is not used, it cannot be said that the petitioner's establishment does not come within the purview of the act since floriculture is an advanced form of agriculture growing specific commodity like flowers......oriented establishment and as such, it comes within list no. 24 of the classes of establishments to which the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 applies for the purpose of coverage.4. admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that it is an export-oriented unit growing flowers by using fused rock and not soil. when it is the specific case of the petitioner that it is an export oriented unit though it cannot be strictly termed as agriculture farm or botanical garden, but falls within list no. 24 of the list of industries to which the act applies. in the impugned ordered passed by the authorities at annexure-b and c it is observed that a new method has been adopted to grow flowers by using fused rock under the advanced form of agriculture by adopting drip irrigation in order to achieve greater produce and merely because soil is not used, it cannot be said that the petitioner's establishment does not come within the purview of the act since floriculture is an advanced form of agriculture growing specific commodity like flowers. so on two grounds the petitioner's unit has been considered as industry for the purpose of coverage. even if list no. 58 does not directly apply to the case as contended by the petitioner's counsel, since the petitioner's unit is said to be an export oriented unit it is necessarily covered under list no. 24, page no. 21 of the classes of establishment to which the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous provisions act is applicable as per annexure-a.5. for the foregoing reasons, i do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed at annexure-b and c. hence, petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

H.V.G. Ramesh, J.

1. Petitioner has sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-B, dated 9-1-2001/8-12-2001 passed by 3rd respondent and also to quash the order dated 30-8-2005 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-C.

2. According to the petitioner, petitioner is a cent per cent export oriented floriculture company and it does not come within the definition of agricultural farms as per the list of industries to which the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 applies, since no agricultural activity is being carried out, rather a fused rock called 'rock wool' is being used for the purpose of growing flowers and as such the provisions of Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 does not apply to the petitioner's unit.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-authority has submitted that as per the averment made in the petition itself the petitioner's unit is an export oriented establishment and as such, it comes within list No. 24 of the classes of establishments to which the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 applies for the purpose of coverage.

4. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that it is an export-oriented unit growing flowers by using fused rock and not soil. When it is the specific case of the petitioner that it is an export oriented unit though it cannot be strictly termed as agriculture farm or botanical garden, but falls within list No. 24 of the list of industries to which the Act applies. In the impugned ordered passed by the authorities at Annexure-B and C it is observed that a new method has been adopted to grow flowers by using fused rock under the advanced form of agriculture by adopting drip irrigation in order to achieve greater produce and merely because soil is not used, it cannot be said that the petitioner's establishment does not come within the purview of the Act since floriculture is an advanced form of agriculture growing specific commodity like flowers. So on two grounds the petitioner's unit has been considered as industry for the purpose of coverage. Even if list No. 58 does not directly apply to the case as contended by the petitioner's Counsel, since the petitioner's unit is said to be an export oriented unit it is necessarily covered under list No. 24, page No. 21 of the classes of establishment to which the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is applicable as per Annexure-A.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed at Annexure-B and C. Hence, petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2007 Same Parties Vasavi Florex vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and... Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge H.V.G. Ramesh, J. Acts & Sections Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, ...

Labour and Industrial