Kerala High Court
Jayalakshmi Silks Private ... vs The Employees Provident Fund ... on 8 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.29090 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONER:
JAYALAKSHMI SILKS PRIVATE LIMITED
MG ROAD,
ERNAKULAM 35 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT), OFFICE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT, KARSHAKA ROAD, KOCHI 682 016
2 THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017
SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR GOPAL -SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 29090/20
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
impugning Ext.P2, as per which, the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour
Court, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal' for short) has directed them to
pay an amount of 30% of the assessed dues,
within a period of one month from the date of
the said order. They say that even though this
order was passed on 25.02.2020, they were
unable to comply with the same on account of
the intervening Covid-19 pandemic disruptions
and therefore, pray that the amount mentioned
in Ext.P2 be reduced to 15%.
2. In response to the afore submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner by their
learned counsel - Smt.A.K.Preetha, the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents -
Sri.Sajeev Kumar Gopal, submitted that going by
the provisions of Section 7(O) of the Employees
WPC 29090/20
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF
Act' for short), it is statutorily incumbent
for the petitioner to deposit 75% of the
assessed dues. He showed that the Tribunal has,
however, reduced the said figure to 30%
exercising its discretionary powers and
therefore, that the petitioner cannot now seek
any further reduction. He added to this by
saying that the order in question was passed on
25.02.2020 and that the petitioner ought to
have remitted the amount by 25.03.2020, during
which time there were no Covid restrictions at
all. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ
Petition be dismissed.
3. I find substantial force in the
submissions of the learned Standing Counsel
since it is evident that Ext.P2 has been issued
by the Tribunal in exercise of its discretion
vested statutorily. It would not be prudent or
WPC 29090/20
proper for this Court to intervene with such
exercise of discretion without reasonable cause
and I am certainly of the view that the
petitioner must, therefore, approach the
Tribunal itself if it wants any reduction of
the amount on account of the subsequent events,
namely the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions.
4. Discerning my mind as afore,
Smt.A.K.Preetha prayed that her client may be
given an opportunity of approaching the
Tribunal with a fresh application and that the
same be directed to be disposed of, after
hearing them also.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I
order this writ petition to the limited extent
of allowing the petitioner liberty of
approaching the Tribunal with a fresh
application to modify Ext.P2; and if this is
done within a period of one week from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the
WPC 29090/20
Tribunal shall consider the same and pass
appropriate orders thereon, after affording
necessary opportunity of being heard to both
sides at the earliest.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 29090/20
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
AS ATA NO. 443/2019
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-2-
2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
APPEAL NO. 443/2019
