Kerala State Horticultural Products ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 5101 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kerala State Horticultural Products ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 15 February, 2024

Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

  THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY   2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945

                    WP(C) NO. 5784 OF 2024

PETITIONER/S:

         KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT
         CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
         DIRECTOR   UDAYAGIRI, POOJAPPURA P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
         BY ADV RAHUL SURENDRAN

RESPONDENT/S:

         REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
         ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,
         PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004


         SRI SAJEEV KUMAR K GOPAL, SC FOR EPFO

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) 5784 of 2024                     2




                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Government Company covered under the provisions

of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,

and the schemes framed thereunder. As the establishment is running at a

loss for the past few years, they have not been able to make statutory

remittances towards the fund contributions and the pension scheme. In the

said circumstances, proceedings were initiated by the EPFO and they were

served with Ext.P1 proceedings computing damages under Section 14B of the

Act. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is stated to have preferred an

appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Ernakulam. By Ext.P3 order, the assessment was set aside and directions

were issued to pass a fresh order. In terms of the same, Ext.P4 order has now

been issued. The petitioner contends that challenging the said order, the

petitioner has approached the Tribunal and has preferred an appeal.

However, they have not been able to secure an interim order as the

appropriate Government has not appointed the Presiding Officer to the

Tribunal. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the

following reliefs:

a. issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, setting aside Exhibit P4 order, issued by the respondent demanding remittance of amounts as penal damages under Section 14B of the Act;

b. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondent authorities not to initiate any further action pursuant to Exhibit P4 order, till such time as Exhibit P5 is taken up for consideration by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ernakulam;

2. I have heard Sri. Rahul Surendran, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. It is undisputed that the petitioner has duly filed both an appeal

and a stay petition before the Tribunal. Yet, the absence of a Presiding Officer

has led to a standstill, with the applications not being taken up. Given these

circumstances, it is both reasonable and imperative to mandate that the

respondents desist from commencing any recovery proceedings from today till

for a duration of 45 days subsequent to the appointment of a Presiding Officer

at the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam.

This would ensure fairness and maintain the status quo, allowing the

Petitioner's appeals due consideration without the imminent threat of recovery

actions.

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following

directions:

a) The respondent shall refrain from initiating any recovery

proceedings from today till for a duration of 45 days

subsequent to the appointment of a Presiding Officer at the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Ernakulam.

b) If an application for stay is moved, as and when the

Presiding Officer takes charge, the same shall be considered

and orders shall be passed within a week.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5784/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.

KR/TVM/12713/DAMAGES CELL/2018-19/3301 DATED 30.07.2018 OF THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.

KR/TVM/12713/DAMAGES CELL/2019-20/2047 DATED 17.07.2019 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON FINAL ORDER DATED.

03.03.2022 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NOS

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.

KR/TVM/12713/DAMAGES CELL/2023-24/6629 DATED 17.10.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED. 06.01.2023 IN WP(C) NO.41849 OF 2022 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT