Kerala High Court
Well Care Hospital vs Union Of India on 11 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 13652 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
WELL CARE HOSPITAL
WELL CARE JUNCTION , NEAR MERCY COLLEGE PALAKKAD
678006 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SATHAR A.V
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN HAJI , RESIDING AT
SAMRUDHI, KALLIKKAD P.O, PALLIPURAM ,PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678006
BY ADVS.
SACHIN RAMESH
VISHNU JYOTHIS LAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF LABOUR &DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
8TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN -
682036
3 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION DISTRICT
OFFICE , 2ND FLOOR RAM ARCADE CHANDRANAGAR P.O
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
BY ADV ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL
DSGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13652 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that even though they have preferred Ext.P2 statutory Appeal against Ext.P1, recovery action pursuant to the latter is being taken forward which is now causing them irreparable prejudice because, the statutory Appellate Tribunal, namely, the 2 nd respondent, is not presently sitting. They, therefore, prayed that all further action pursuant to Ext.P1 be ordered to be deferred, until such time as the 2nd respondent - Tribunal decides the statutory Appeal as per law.
2. In response to the afore request of the petitioner, as made by their learned counsel - Sri.Sachin Ramesh, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 - Sri.Abraham P.Meachinkara, submitted that, since the Tribunal is not presently sitting, he will not stand in the way of this Court issuing appropriate orders; but praying that his client be allowed liberty to initiate fresh action against the petitioner, depending upon the decision to be taken by the said Tribunal.
3. I have no doubt that when the statutory Tribunal is not sitting, the petitioner cannot be put to prejudice because, they have already invoked their remedy under law before it.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and order WP(C) NO. 13652 OF 2024 3 that action pursuant to Ext.P1 will stand deferred and the petitioner thus allowed to operate their account; however, subject to any decision to be taken by the 2nd respondent - Tribunal on Ext.P2 statutory Appeal.
Needless to say, the Tribunal will dispose of the Appeal, following due procedure and affording necessary opportunity to both sides; and will endeavour to do so at the earliest without any avoidable delay.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/11.4 WP(C) NO. 13652 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13652/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL DATED NIL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT