Kerala High Court
Geevar P Abraham vs Union Of India on 12 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ROYCE KIZHAKOODAN, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O K.R. VARGHESE, KIZHAKOODAN HOUSE NELLIKUNNU,
EAST FORT P.O, OLLUKARA THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER-II/ RECOVERY OFFICER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION MINISTRY OF
LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI
BHAWAN, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
2 GEEVAR.P.ABRAHAM, MANAGING PARTNER M/S GOOD LIFE
CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PUTHUPARAMBIL, KOTTICKAL P.O,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686514
3 JOSHY JOHN, PARTNER M/S GOOD LIFE CONSTRUCTION &
DEVELOPERS KALLUKALAYIL, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686507
4 JOSHY JOHN, PARTNER M/S GOOD LIFE CONSTRUCTION &
DEVELOPERS KALLUKALAYIL, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686507
5 SUBASH CHANDRAN, PARTNER M/S GOOD LIFE CONSTRUCTION &
DEVELOPERS KALAMPURATHU, CHOTTANIKARA P.O, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682312
6 K.G JOY, PARTNER M/S GOOD LIFE CONSTRUCTION &
DEVELOPERS KOYIKKARA HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683122
THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
JACOB CHACKO
SRI. ANILKUMAR, FOR R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5745/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5745 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
GEEVAR P ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O P C ABRAHAM,PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOTTICKAL,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686514
BY ADVS.
JACOB CHACKO
B.V.JOY SANKAR(K/1195/1995)
P.SUJITH KUMAR(K/452/2005)
MATHEWS JOSEPH(K/715/2013)
GEORGE JOSEPH (ITTANKULANGARA)(K/638/1997)
BINU PAUL (NETTOOR)(K/336/2004)
R.RAJA RAJA VARMA(K/3072/1999)
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION, HEAD OFFICE, BHAVISYA NIDHI BHAWAN,
14-BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066
2 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISYA NIDHI BHAVAN,
JOURNALIST COLONY, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, KOCHI,
PIN - 682017
3 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II &RECOVERY
OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISYA NODHI
BHAVAN, JOURNALIST COLONY, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR,
KOCHI, PIN - 682017
4 PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER
EPF SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
3
JOURNALIST COLONY, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, KOCHI,
PIN - 682017
BY ADV S.PRASANTH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.06.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5300/2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
4
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.5300/2024, 5745/2024]
Both these writ petitions are being disposed of together
adverting to the analogous nature of the circumstances pleaded
and the similarity of the reliefs sought for.
2. The petitioners in both these cases are stated to have
been the partners of a firm by name M/s.Good Life Construction
and Developer, but assert that they have retired/resigned long
ago, thus being without any responsibility to honour the the
obligations under the Employees Provident Fund Act ('Act' for
short).
3. The petitioner in W.P(C)No.5300 of 2024, represented
by Sri.Rajesh Narayan Iyer and the petitioner in
W.P(C)No.5745 of 2024 - represented by Sri.Jacob Chacko,
assert that their respective resignation/retirements have been
approved not only by the Firm, but also by the Employees
Provident Fund Organization (EPFO); and hence that no action
could be now proceeded against them.
4. In fact, Sri.Rajesh Narayan Iyer - learned counsel for
the petitioner in W.P(C)No.5300 of 2024 further submitted that
his client had also entered into an agreement with the other
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
partners at the time when he retired/resigned and that under it,
they took over the entire responsibility, including the
obligations under the 'Act'; and hence, that the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner is without competence in
proceeding against him.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, thus prayed
that the impugned notices issued by the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner be quashed.
6. Sri.Anilkumar - learned counsel for respondent No.5 in
W.P(C)No.5300 of 2024, also very pertinently, said that his
client had also retired/resigned and that this is also been
approved by the EPFO.
7. The learned standing counsel for the EPFO
(Sri.S.Prasanth in the case of W.P.(C) 5745/2024 and
Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimottil in the case of W.P.(C)
5300/2024), however, argued that the internal and private
affairs of the partners of a Firm cannot bind their client and
that they are entitled to initiate necessary recovery action
against them, particularly because a Recovery Certificate had
been issued against all of them, as early as in the year 2019.
The learned standing counsel pointed out that, even going by
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
the impugned notices, the Recovery Certificate - bearing
No.KR/KC/29474/Recovery/2019, had been drawn up by the
Authorised Officer, after following due procedure and that this
has never been challenged by any of the parties to this case
until now. They argued that, therefore, the attempt of the
petitioners is only to circumvent the process of law, especially
when they can still show cause against the issue of warrant
against them before the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner himself, since the impugned notices give them
such an opportunity.
8. I must say that the afore submissions of the learned
standing counsel for the EPFO carry weight because: for the
first, the impugned notices are merely ones which ask the
petitioners to show cause why a warrant of arrest be not issued
against them, on the strength of the Recovery Certificate
earlier issued. Obviously, the petitioners would have
approached the Provident Fund Commissioner and shown
cause as to why a warrant of violence be not issued against
him, for which purpose, they could impel every contention that
has been projected in these writ petitions. One fails to
understand why they did not do so, but rushed to this Court.
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
9. For the second, the EPFO takes the stand that the
Recovery Certificate has been issued as per law. This is
another reason why the petitioners should show cause against
any action against them before the Provident Fund
Commissioner, including that they were not aware of it, or that
they were not properly notified etc. These liberties are never
lost to them, even when the impugned notices have been
issued; but, in fact, are reserved specifically under the statutory
mandate.
10. For the afore reasons, I see no cause to interfere with
the proceedings at this stage.
11. In the afore circumstances, I close these writ petitions
without any further orders; however, leaving every liberty open
to the petitioners to impel and pursue their contentions before
the Provident Fund Commissioner, in response to the notices
issued to them; and clarify that this Court has not entered into
the merits of any of them in this judgment.
12. Needless to say, the liberty of the petitioners to invoke
any other remedy in future, including before this Court, are left
open.
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
For an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I
direct the parties to appear before the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner at 11 a.m on 26.06.2024; on which day, the said
Authority will either hear them, after giving them necessary
opportunities of filing their objection; or fix another convenient
date for the same, and finalise proceedings without any
avoidable delay.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
mc/stu
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5745/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit .P1 TRUE COPY OF RETIREMENT DEED EXECUTED IN
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND JOY.K.G AND
VIPIN BABU DATED 09/08/2016
Exhibit.P 2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 09/01/2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit.P 3 TRUE COPY OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 29/12/2023
Exhibit .P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 10/01/2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the Form 5A dated 08.2013
Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the Letter No.
KR/KCH/29474/Enf.1(3)/2017 dated
13.10.2017
Exhibit R2(c) True copy of the acknowledgement received
via email dated 10.10.2017
Exhibit R2(d) True copy of the Agreement dated
30.4.2015
WP(C) NO. 5300 OF 2024 & con.case
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5300/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 8.6.2015
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 5
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.12.2023
NO.KR/KC/29474/RECOVERY/2023-24 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 (a) A true copy of the form 5A dated 08/2013.
