Kerala High Court
Kerala State Cashew Development ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 5 November, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2024:KER:82201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 38362 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CASHEW HOUSE, P.B. NO.13,
MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADVS.
SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE, SC, KERALA STATE CASHEW
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
ADARSH MATHEW
ANIRUDH G. KAMATH
AGUSTHO NORBERT
ANNA B.
RESPONDENTS:
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II,
KOLLAM
PONNAMMA CHAMBERS-I,
PARAMESWAR NAGAR, OPP.ARCHANA-ARADHANA THEATRE,
KOLLAM,
PIN - 691001
BY ADVS.
PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER V.S
AKASH S.(K/980/2008)
GIRISH KUMAR M S(K/001593/2018)
SRIVIDYA K(K/001476/2018)
2024:KER:82201
WP(C) NO.38362 OF 2024
2
RICHU THERESA ROBERT(K/002427/2021)
SC SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:82201
WP(C) NO.38362 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2024
The petitioner is a Corporate Entity fully owned by
Government of Kerala and operates 30 cashew factories
across the State. The respondent is an authorized officer of
the Employee's Provident Fund Organisation with the
authority to impose damage under Section 14B of the
Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The writ petition challenges the demand of
₹12,82,808/- as damages under Section 14B of the Act for
Factory No.15, Chittumala, Kollam. This damage pertains to
delayed payments for the remittances period from
16.03.2014 to 31.03.2022. The impugned order bearing No.
KR /KLM /1156 /Penal Damages /Diary No.31/ 2024, was
2024:KER:82201
WP(C) NO.38362 OF 2024
issued on 24.07.2024. The petitioner attributes the delay in
remittances to severe financial constraints and not
intentional default.
3. The petitioner had approached the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, in Appeal
No.87/2024, seeking a stay of recovery proceedings under
Section 14B of the Act. However, the Tribunal has been
nonfunctional due to the absence of Presiding Officer. In
similar circumstances, this Court through judgments in W.P.
(C) Nos.14283 of 2024 and 13328 of 2024, stayed coercive
actions until the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Ernakulam could consider the pending Appeals. The
petitioner seeks similar relief in this writ petition to avoid
adverse consequences.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing
the respondent.
2024:KER:82201
WP(C) NO.38362 OF 2024
5. Standing Counsel submitted that since the
petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of
Appeal and since the petitioner has already approached the
Appellate Authority, it would not be proper for this Court to
entertain the writ petition at this stage. The writ petition is
liable to be dismissed, contends the Standing Counsel.
6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the damages
imposed on the Provident Fund dues payable by the
petitioner. The petitioner states that the petitioner had
preferred an Appeal before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, Ernakulam with an interim prayer to stay the
recovery of damages initiated as per Ext.P9. The Appeal is
numbered as Appeal No.87/2024. Due to the lack of Presiding
Officer from the date of filing the Appeal, the matter is yet not
admitted or heard.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has
invoked its statutory remedy, it would be only appropriate that
2024:KER:82201
WP(C) NO.38362 OF 2024
the Appellate Authority considers the grievance of the
petitioner at the first instance.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam to
consider and dispose of Appeal No.87/2024 as also the
interim stay application prayed for therein as expeditiously
as possible. Till the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Ernakulam takes a decision on the interim stay application or
on the Appeal, coercive proceedings against the petitioner
shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
2024:KER:82201
WP(C) NO.38362 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38362/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THEPROFIT AND LOSS
STATEMENTS SHOWING THE 2014-2015
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS
STATEMENTS OF THE YEAR 2015-16 SHOWING
THELOSS FACED BY THE CORPORATION
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS
STATEMENTS OF THEYEAR 2016-17
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS
STATEMENTS OF THEYEAR 2016-17
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS
STATEMENT OF THE YEAR 2018-2019
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
PROFIT AND LOSS OF THE YEAR 2019-2020
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
PROFIT AND LOSS SHOWING THE LOSS
SUFFERED FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
PROFIT AND LOSS SHOWING THE LOSS
SUFFERED FOR THE YEAR 2021- 2022
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT'S
ORDER NO.KR/KLM /1156 /PENAL
DAMAGES /DIARY NO.31 /2024 DATED
24.07.2024
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
03.06.2024 IN WP (C) 14283 OF 2024
2024:KER:82201
WP(C) NO.38362 OF 2024
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.06.2024 IN WP(C) 13328 OF 2024
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
03.11.2023 IN WP(C) NO.14965/2023
