Kerala High Court
Kerala State Horticultural Products ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ... on 16 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
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6048 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
RESPONDENTS:
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,
BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004.
SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6048 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. The appeal was allowed by Ext.P3 order and
the 1st respondent was directed to reexamine the issue. They contend that
they have now been served with Ext.P4 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
Ext.P5 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; 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 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 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
Sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6048/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
KR/TVM/12713/DAMAGES CELL/2018-19/3301 DATED
27.07.2018.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
KR/TVM/12713/DAMAGES CELL/2019-20/2047 DATED
15.07.2019 OF THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON FINAL ORDER DATED.
03.03.2022 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.
346 OF 2018 AND 360 OF 2019.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
KR/TVM/12713/DAMAGES CELL/2023-24/6630 DATED
17.10.2023.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 136 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.
