Well Care Hospital vs Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 10613 Ker

Kerala High Court

Well Care Hospital vs Union Of India on 11 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 13652 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          WELL CARE HOSPITAL
          WELL CARE JUNCTION , NEAR MERCY COLLEGE PALAKKAD
          678006 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SATHAR A.V
          AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN HAJI , RESIDING AT
          SAMRUDHI, KALLIKKAD P.O, PALLIPURAM ,PALAKKAD,
          PIN - 678006
          BY ADVS.
          SACHIN RAMESH
          VISHNU JYOTHIS LAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNION OF INDIA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
          MINISTRY OF LABOUR &DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT NEW
          DELHI, PIN - 110001
    2     EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
          8TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
          ERNAKULAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN -
          682036
    3     ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
          EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION DISTRICT
          OFFICE , 2ND FLOOR RAM ARCADE CHANDRANAGAR P.O
          PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
          BY ADV ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
          SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL
          DSGI


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13652 OF 2024              2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that even though they have preferred Ext.P2

statutory Appeal against Ext.P1, recovery action pursuant to the latter

is being taken forward which is now causing them irreparable

prejudice because, the statutory Appellate Tribunal, namely, the 2 nd

respondent, is not presently sitting. They, therefore, prayed that all

further action pursuant to Ext.P1 be ordered to be deferred, until such

time as the 2nd respondent - Tribunal decides the statutory Appeal as

per law.

2. In response to the afore request of the petitioner, as made by

their learned counsel - Sri.Sachin Ramesh, the learned Standing

Counsel for respondent No.3 - Sri.Abraham P.Meachinkara, submitted

that, since the Tribunal is not presently sitting, he will not stand in the

way of this Court issuing appropriate orders; but praying that his client

be allowed liberty to initiate fresh action against the petitioner,

depending upon the decision to be taken by the said Tribunal.

3. I have no doubt that when the statutory Tribunal is not sitting,

the petitioner cannot be put to prejudice because, they have already

invoked their remedy under law before it.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and order

that action pursuant to Ext.P1 will stand deferred and the petitioner

thus allowed to operate their account; however, subject to any decision

to be taken by the 2nd respondent - Tribunal on Ext.P2 statutory

Appeal.

Needless to say, the Tribunal will dispose of the Appeal, following

due procedure and affording necessary opportunity to both sides; and

will endeavour to do so at the earliest without any avoidable delay.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/11.4

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13652/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL DATED NIL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT