Kerala High Court
Amended, Employees Provident ... vs N.Jayaprakash on 18 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 31413 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
RESPONDENT:
N.JAYAPRAKASH
PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRAKASH CASHEWS,
MYLAMKULAM, PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.
BY ADV SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).31414/2012, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.31413 & 31414 of 2012
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 31414 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM
BY ADV SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
RESPONDENT:
G.P.N.CASHEW EXPORTING COMPANY
KAREEPRA, KUZHUMATHIKKAD, KOLLAM
(PRESENTLY M/S.DEEPAK EXPORTS ENTERPRISES).
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
SRI.S.SUJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).31413/2012, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.31413 & 31414 of 2012
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.31413 & 31414 of 2012
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2023
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I
am disposing these writ petitions by a common judgment.
2. These writ petitions were originally filed by the
Employees Provident Fund Organisation represented by the
Enforcement Officer, Sub Regional Office, Chinnakkada,
Kollam. The respondents raised a question of maintainability
of the writ petitions because the petitioner is represented by
an officer, who is below the rank of the adjudicating authority.
Thereafter amendment applications were filed before this
Court to amend the cause-title. The same was seriously
opposed by the respondents. But, after hearing both sides,
this Court allowed the amendment applications as per order
dated 06.10.2020, which is extracted hereunder:
"Heard both sides.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
vehemently opposed this application for amendment
WP(C).Nos.31413 & 31414 of 2012
of cause title of the writ petition, pointing out the
order dated 16.06.2020 passed by this Court. Learned
counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the
writ petition as framed and filed itself is not
maintainable and therefore he had objected for
entertainment of the interim application. Learned
counsel for the respondent submits that therefore the
amendment cannot be allowed.
3. The proposed amendment is for impleading proper
party. Cause of substantial justice is required to be
looked into rather than adhering to the technicalities.
This Court is dealing with social welfare legislation
and therefore the application for amendment is
allowed, subject to permitting the respondent to raise
all just contentions, including that regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition by filing counter
affidavit by the respondent."
3. In the above order, this Court allowed the
respondents to raise all just contentions, including that
regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, by filing
counter affidavit by the respondents.
4. Today, when the writ petitions came up for final
hearing, the counsel for the respondents again raised the
same contention and submitted that the affidavits
accompanying the writ petitions are by the Enforcement
WP(C).Nos.31413 & 31414 of 2012
Officer, Employees Provident Fund Orgainsation, Sub Regional
Office, Kollam, and therefore, the writ petitions are not
maintainable even though the cause title of the writ petitions
are changed as Central Board of Trustees, Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, represented by the Assistant
Provident Commissioner, Sub Regional Office. It is also
submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner cannot represent the
Central Board of Trustees. The counsel for the petitioners
takes me through two internal circulars issued by the
Employees Provident Fund Organisation bearing Nos.LC-
9(03)2016/CBT dated 05.02.2016 and LC-4(3)2014/MH/HC
dated 15.09.2014.
5. It is true that now the petitioner is the Central
Board of Trustees, EPF. But the Central Board of Trustees is
represented by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Moreover, the affidavits accompanying the writ petitions are
by the Enforcement Officer. When these anomalies are raised,
the Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petitions with
liberty to file a fresh one. This is opposed by the counsel for
WP(C).Nos.31413 & 31414 of 2012
the respondents. But, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, and also considering the fact that, this Court is
dealing with social welfare legislation, I think liberty can be
granted to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition with
proper parties and with proper affidavit.
Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed as
withdrawn, with liberty to the EPF Authorities to file fresh
writ petitions in accordance to law.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
