Sujatha Mary vs Indian Rare Earths Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3443 Ker

               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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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