IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WA NO. 722 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2022 IN WP(C) 8476/2022 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M/S.TRAYI
11/32 - A, EAST DESAM, DESAM P.O, ALUVA, KOCHI -
683101. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND
ADMN), MR. ANIL KRISHNA PILLAI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL
OFFICE, 36/685 A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI
- 682017.
2 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT,
38/377 A-2, KARITHALA LANE, KARSHAK ROAD, COCHIN -
682016, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER.
BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL -S.C
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
W.A.No.722 of 2022
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in W.P(C).No.8476 of 2022 is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.03.2022 of the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:
The appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act and covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF Act' for short). Against an assessment of the dues on which the necessary contribution under the EPF Act has to be paid, the appellant approached the Appellate Tribunal through an appeal. The said appeal was allowed by setting aside the order of the original authority and remanding the matter back to him after directing him to exclude the HRA component from the amounts paid to the employee, and to examine whether the other allowances paid to the employees would fall within the scope of :3: W.A.No.722 of 2022 dues on which contributions are to be paid by the appellant.
3. Apparently, on perusing the order of the Tribunal, the appellant felt that the order of the Tribunal that purported to be an open remand to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for a fresh determination of the allowances that could be included in the computation of dues on which the contribution had to be paid, contained some findings adverse to the appellant on the issue of inclusion of allowances for the purposes of contribution. It was with a view to get a clarification in that regard that the appellant approached this Court through the Writ Petition aforementioned.
4. The learned Single Judge, on considering the matter, found that there was no justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal since it was in the nature of an open remand. The learned Judge also felt that the Writ Petition was a total abuse of the process of the Court, and hence, while dismissing the Writ Petition he also directed costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the Legal Service Authority of Kerala.
5. In the Appeal before us, we have heard Sri.Benny P. Thomas, :4: W.A.No.722 of 2022 the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the only relief sought for by the appellant in the Writ Petition was a clarification that the remand by the Appellate Tribunal to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner was an open remand, save for the the issue of inclusion of HRA, which had to be excluded from the computation of dues in terms of the express provisions of the EPF Act. On a perusal of the order of the tribunal impugned in the writ petition, we find that the remand was in fact an open remand and the other observations of the tribunal cannot be seen as findings against the appellant. We therefore set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and declare that Ext.P4 order of the Appellate Tribunal shall be seen as an open remand to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to consider whether the various allowances other than HRA paid by the appellant to its employee would merit inclusion in the computation of dues for the purposes of the contribution required under the EPF Act. We make it clear that it would be open to the appellant to raise all contentions on merit before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner who shall consider the issue on merits untrammeled by :5: W.A.No.722 of 2022 the observations in Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal.
The Writ Appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE mns