Kerala High Court
The Assistant Provident Fund ... vs Kerala Garments Limited on 27 February, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO. 2271 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2012 IN WP(C) NO.7813 OF 2008
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1:
1 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL
OFFICE, V.K.COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, P.B.NO.117,
KANNUR - 670 001.
2 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND,THROUGH REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER,REGIONAL OFFICE,
V.K.COMPLEX,FORT ROAD, KANNUR.
BY ADV K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.2:
1 KERALA GARMENTS LTD.,
THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR - 1,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
GENERAL MANAGER-IN-CHARGE.
2 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
7TH FLOOR, SKYLARK BUILDING,
NEHRU PALACE,NEW DELHI-110 019.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2024, ALONG WITH WA.2275/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal Nos. 2271 and 2275 of 2018
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO. 2275 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2013 IN WP(C) NO.8890 OF 2010
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2:
1 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, V.K.COMPLEX, FORT ROAD,
P.B.NO.117, KANNUR - 670 001.
2 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND,
THROUGH REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
V.K. COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR.
BY ADV K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1:
1 KERALA GARMENTS LIMITED,
THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR - 1,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
GENERAL MANAGER-IN-CHARGE MR.ARUL SELVAN.
2 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCOPE MINAR, CORE II, 4TH FLOOR, LAXMI NAGAR,
DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAR, NEW DELHI - 110 092.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.JAI MOHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2024,
ALONG WITH WA.2271/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal Nos. 2271 and 2275 of 2018
3
AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------
C.M.Appln No.1 of 2018 in W.A.No.2271 of 2018,
C.M.Appln No.1 of 2018 in W.A.No.2275 of 2018
and
Writ Appeal Nos. 2271 and 2275 of 2018
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of February 2024
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
Both the appeals have been directed against the judgment of the
learned Single Bench disposing off the writ petitions (WP(C) No.8890
of 2010 and 7813 of 2008) preferred by the establishment against the
order of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal quantifying the
damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, by reducing the amounts to the
extent of 25% and 30% respectively considering the financial
difficulties and other parameters. Appeals have been preferred with an
application seeking condonation of delay of more than six years, that
is, more than 2000 days. The reasons assigned in the applications as
well as the affidavit are, change of counsel and shifting of the files
Writ Appeal Nos. 2271 and 2275 of 2018
from one table to another table. We are of the view that such
reasoning on behalf of the instrumentality of the State cannot be
pardoned. Such excuse cannot be a ground for condonation of delay.
Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has commented upon the
action of the instrumentalities in adopting a tardy approach. Delay in
filing the appeals in such circumstances cannot be said to be justified
and bonafide.
C.M.applications are dismissed. Consequently Appeals also are
dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
