Dr.Muraleedhara Das vs B.Andrew Prabhu
2021 Latest Caselaw 20058 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
                   CON.CASE(C) NO. 1658 OF 2020

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.25435/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF
                      KERALA DATED 31.10.2014

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

    1     DR.MURALEEDHARA DAS, AGED 59 YEARS,
          S/O.C.K.MADHAVAN, MARKETING HEAD,
          ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION
          LTD, NO. E-150(D) EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024,
          [RETIRED MANAGING DIRECTOR],
          RESIDING AT MANASA, NORTH GATE,
          ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
          P.F.A/C.NO.KR/KCH.9981/00C-487 [PETITIONER NO.28].

    2     DR GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 59 YEARS,
          S/O.D.THOMAS, ASSISTANT MANAGER P & I,
          ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION
          LTD, NO. E-150(D) EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 682024,
          (RETIRED AS MANAGER (P & I), RESIDING AT BETHLEHEM,
          UTRA 60, UNICHIRA-THAIKKAVU,
          CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, P.O.KALAMASSERY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)
          P.F.A/C.NO.KR/KCH/9981/00C711 (PETITIONER NO. 36.)

    3     BALACHANDRAN K.N., AGED 58 YEARS,
          S/O.K.K.NARAYANAN, ASSISTANT MANAGER MAINT,
          ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION
          LTD, NO. E-150(D) EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024,
          (RETIRED AS MANAGER (ENGINEERING),
          RESIDING AT KAKKANATHU HOUSE,
          PULIYANNOOR P.O., PALAI, KOTTAYAM,
          P.F.A/C NO.KR/KCH/2729/871 (PETITIONER NO.42.).

          BY ADVS. K.SASIKUMAR
          SRI.S.ARAVIND
 C.O.C.No.1658 of 2020 [S]     - 2 -



RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:

           B.ANDREW PRABHU, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
           PETITIONERS, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
           EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION (EPFO), SUB
           REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANITHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-
           682017, RESIDING AT KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI.
           BY ADV SRI.S.PRASANTH
     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 C.O.C.No.1658 of 2020 [S]     - 3 -


                   K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
       -----------------------------------------------
            Cont.Case (Civil) No.1658 of 2020 [S]
        -----------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021

                             JUDGMENT

As of now the contempt petition will not survive

since the matter is pending before a larger bench of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a reference made. In such

circumstance, the contempt case is closed, leaving open

the remedy of the petitioners to move the contempt case

as and when the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides on the

issue.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Employees

Provident Fund Organisation [for brevity, 'EPFO'] has a

contention that it is a fresh cause of action, since the

amendment, which is the subject of consideration before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, curtails the rights of the

petitioners. The EPFO would be entitled to raise the said

ground at the time of revival of the contempt case. The

learned Counsel for the petitioners would also submit

that they are not getting any pension; even on the

ceiling limit as of now. In such circumstances, this

Court leaves liberty to the petitioners to approach the

EPFO under protest to receive the pension as per the

ceiling limit and the balance amount shall be left to be

agitated by the petitioners after the Hon'ble Supreme

Court decides the issue, either in the contempt case

itself or by a fresh proceeding. This Court makes it

clear that on making an application for release of the

pension, as admitted by the EPFO, the same shall be

processed immediately and the arrears paid within three

months, with regular disbursal of monthly pension,

reserving the right of the petitioners to claim the

higher amounts, if eventually the Hon'ble Supreme Court

rules in their favour.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

sp/24/09/2021

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1658/2020

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE:-

ANNEXURE-A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 31.10.2014 IN WPC NO.25435/2004.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.03.2020 FORWARDED IN THE CASE OF 1ST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 AS TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RELATING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 1/6/2020 FORWARDED BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4 AS TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.3.2020 IN THE CASE OF 2ND PETITIONER FORWARDED BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 1.6.2020 RELATING TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FORWARDED BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.09.2020 FORWARDED BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2020 IN CON. CASE(C) NO.2438/2019.