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. 5849 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, UDAYAGIRI, POOJAPPURA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 695012
BY ADV RAHUL SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT:
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 5849 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. However, as there is no Presiding Officer, their stay petition has
not been taken up. They contend that they have now been served with
Exhibit P3 order computing certain amounts as due under Section 14B of the
Act. The petitioner contends that challenging the said order, the petitioner has
approached the Tribunal and has preferred Exhibit P4 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 P3 order, issued by the respondent
demanding remittance of amounts as penal damages under Section 14B
of the Act; or in the alternative
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 P3 order, till such
time as Exhibit P4 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 respondents 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) 5849/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KR/TVM/12713/DAMAGES
CELL/2022-23/5535, DATED 14.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED.06.01.2023 IN WP(C)
NO.41849 OF 2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2023 IN
PROCEEDINGS NO.KR/TVM/12713/DAMAGES
CELL/2023-24/3499 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WEB CIRCULAR NO.
C-1/MISC.2020-21/VOL.I/1112 DATED 15.05.2020
