IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.4902 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONER:
SUJATHA MARY, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOSE,
PRASADA MANDIRAM, PUTHENTHURA.P.O., NEENDAKARA,
KOLLAM, PIN-691582.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD.,CHAVARA.P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 583,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANGER.
2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, PONNAMMA CHAMBERS,
PARAMESWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM-691 001.
3 THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),
RAMANILAYAM, TC 25/3453, UPPALAM ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
*ADDL. R4 THULASIBHAI, REVATHI NIVAS, THAZHAVA,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 523
*(ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 03.03.2020 IN IA 1/2020.)
BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, R1
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN
SRI.A.K.HARIDAS, SC R3
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4902 OF 2020(K)
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of February 2021 This case presents an internecine dispute between the wife and mother of an employee of the first respondent - Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Kollam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for short), for the terminal benefits, consequent to his unfortunate death on 16.03.2014.
2. While the petitioner is the wife of Jose - the deceased employee; the fourth respondent is his mother, and both of them stake claim to his terminal benefits asserting that they are exclusively entitled to the same, in preference to the other.
3. The petitioner, through her learned counsel Smt.Rekha S., submits that Jose had died without naming a nominee and, therefore, that, she being his legally wedded wife, is solely entitled to all his terminal benefits, in exclusion of his mother - the fourth respondent. The petitioner says that she has also preferred Exts.P1 and P4 representations before the first respondent for WP(C).No.4902 OF 2020(K) -3- this purpose; and alternatively prays that same be directed to be disposed of at the earliest.
4. In response to the afore submissions, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent - Regional Labour Commissioner (General), Sri.A.K.Haridas, submitted that his client had assessed the rival claims of the petitioner and the fourth respondent and had issued an order directing that the Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) eligible to late Jose be divided equally between them. He submitted that since the parties do not challenge the said order, no further directions may be issued against his client.
5. Sri.V.S.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record, wherein, after narrating the factual circumstances, it has been averred that on the basis of an application filed in Form 10D by the petitioner, she has already been granted the eligible pension applicable to the widow, vide PPO WP(C).No.4902 OF 2020(K) -4- No.KR/KLM/122255. The learned Standing Counsel added that since the first respondent is exempted from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, said benefit has to be released by them and not by his client. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed as against his client.
6. Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar - learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, submitted that, as is now clear from the afore narrative, all the benefits due to late Jose, except the Provident Fund amounts, have already been disbursed by the Competent Authorities and that his client is unable to take a decision as to who among the petitioner and the fourth respondent is eligible to there sums. He added that his client is put in a difficult situation because they had received a letter, dated 11.12.2013, from late Jose that no part of his retirement benefits be given to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel concluded his submissions by saying that the total Provident Fund amount due to late Jose is Rs.3,94,355/-; out WP(C).No.4902 OF 2020(K) -5- of which, an amount of Rs.2,17,985/- has been adjusted towards certain loans availed of by him and that the balance payable is Rs.1,76,370/-.
7. When I consider the afore submissions, it is ineluctable that, except the Provident Fund amounts, others have already been disbursed by the Competent Authorities in terms of law. As regards this amount, it is for the first respondent to take an appropriate decision thereon, after hearing the petitioner and the fourth respondent and after taking into account all relevant aspects, including the impact of the Rules and Regulations in force at the time of the death of Jose.
8. I, therefore, cannot find any reason why the first respondent has not taken a decision as regards disbursement of the Provident Fund amounts due on account of the death of Jose; and am, resultantly, of the firm view that such a decision must be taken by its Competent Authorities at the earliest, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner and the fourth respondent. WP(C).No.4902 OF 2020(K) -6- In the afore circumstances, recording the submissions of Sri.A.K.Haridas and Sri.V.S.Sudheer as above, I order this writ petition and direct the Competent Authority of the first respondent to immediately hear the petitioner and the fourth respondent and take a decision as to the disbursement of the Provident Fund amounts which are stated to be in their custody.
The afore exercise shall be completed by the first respondent - as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and it is needless to say that depending upon the decision to be taken, the Provident Fund amount shall be disbursed without any further delay thereafter.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C).No.4902 OF 2020(K) -7- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT HEAD UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.4.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2018 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIR SHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR,KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 3.6.2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.10.2019 TO THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.
EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30/10/2020 BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER, HRM UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE