Pranab Kumar Chatterjee & Ors vs Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4466 Cal

01-09-2021
  ct no. 23
   Sl. 09
 Sayandeep
                              W.P.A. 11910 of 2021

                      Pranab Kumar Chatterjee & Ors.
                                -Versus-
                      Eastern Coalfields limited & Ors.

                            (Via Video Conference)


                Mr. Nirmalendu Ganguly
                                                   ...for the petitioners

                Mr. Mr. Somnath Basu
                                                                 ....for ECL

                Mr. Kallol Guha Thakurata
                Mr. Bodhisatta Basu
                Ms. Shreyasi Manna
                                    ....For the Resondent No. 4


                        The    petitioners   say    that    their    father

              Prabodh       Kumar    Chatterjee     while    serving     at

              Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short ECL), the

              respondent No. 1 died on 26th February, 1975. The

writ petition has been filed on 26th July, 2021 inter

alia claiming the retiral benefits of the deceased

father of the petitioners. Records reveal that the

petitioners applied for release of the provident fund

money said to be due to their father after an

interval of 25 years. The claims made by the

petitioners were forwarded to the Regional

Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Funds (in

short CMPF) on 22nd December, 2000. The

petitioners' prayer was rejected by the Assistant

Commissioner-1 CMPF on 23rd May, 2003. Nothing

appears from the record to have been done by the

petitioners between 2003 and 2020. The earliest

representation and/or the demand notice issued

by the petitioners is dated 28th December, 2020.

This was received by the respondent authorities (as

appears at page 21 of the writ petition) on 1st,

January, 2020. The next document is dated 18th

January, 2021. This is a demand notice written by

an advocate on behalf of the petitioners claiming

the provident fund amount of the petitioners'

father. It is therefor apparent that the first

application for release of the provident fund was

made after 25 years. This prayer was rejected in

2003. The petitioners did not take any steps

between 2003 and 2021 till the writ petition was

filed save and except the demands notices

respectively on 20th December, 2020 and 18th

January, 2021. Although it is the responsibility of

the employer to pay the provident fund amount

and other benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased

employee immediately upon the same falling due or

within a reasonable period of time therefrom

require to process the claims but at the same time

it is the duty of the legal heirs to claim for release

of such money if the same is not paid within a

reasonable period of time. Although delay in

claiming the benefits is not always fatal but in the

instant case, the demand was made by the legal

heirs of the deceased after 25 years. This period of

25 years cannot be construed to be a reasonable

period within which a claim can be lodged.

Assuming without admitting that this delay did not

disentitle the petitioners from receiving the retiral

benefits of their deceased father then also the

period between 2003 and 2021 being the date of

rejecting the claim and the date when the writ

petition was filed is over 17 years which remains

unexplained. This delay in approaching the Court

is purely attributable to the petitioners and has to

be construed as laches on their part. Following the

ratio laid down in the Judgment reported in

(2016)13 SCC 797 [Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life

Insurance Corporation of India]. The claim of the

petitioners cannot be entertained in writ

jurisdiction. Even though a direction to consider

the petitioners' claim afresh after about 46 years

may not effect any third party right but for the

delay and laches as aforesaid I am not inclined to

pass any order even directing the respondents to

consider the claim of the writ petitioners. 46 years

have elapsed between the death of the petitioners'

father and filing of the instant writ petition. This

inordinate delay is laches on the part of the

petitioners for which it cannot also be said that the

non-payment of provident fund dues cannot be

said to be a continuing wrong in absence of any

assertion of right if any.

The instant writ petition is therefore

dismissed without any order as to costs.

Since I have not called for any affidavits,

the allegations contained in the writ petition are

deemed to have not been admitted by the

respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this

order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties

upon compliance with the necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)