Kerala High Court
M/S. Karuna Hospital & School Of Nursing vs The Union Of India, Represented By Its ... on 6 October, 2025
2025:KER:72475
W.A No.1494 of 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 1494 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2022 IN WP(C)
NO.26094 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN THE WP(C):
1 M/S. KARUNA HOSPITAL & SCHOOL OF NURSING
NEDUMKANDOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685553, REPRESENTED
BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FR. JOSE PLACHICKAL, AGED 73
YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH.
2 FR. JOSE PLACHICKAL
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, M/S. KARUNA HOSPITAL &
SCHOOL OF NURSING, NEDUMKANDOM-685553, RESIDING AT
BISHOP'S HOUSE, KARIMPAN, MANIPPARA P.O., IDUKKI, PIN -
685602
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SHRI.JOICE GEORGE
SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):
1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2025:KER:72475
W.A No.1494 of 2022
2
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, 334C, III FLOOR,
C-WING, RAFI MARG, DELHI - 110001.
2 THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REPRESENTED
BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II
REGIONAL OFFICE, ADITYA SABARI TOWER, POST OFFICE ROAD,
THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
3 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL
OFFICE, ADITYA SABARI TOWER, POST OFFICE ROAD,
THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM- 686001.
4 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL
OFFICE, ADITYA SABARI TOWER, POST OFFICE ROAD,
THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001.
BY ADV SHRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2025, THE COURT ON 06.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:72475
W.A No.1494 of 2022
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated
01.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.26094 of 2022 whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellants has been disposed of with certain
observations.
2. The appellants had filed the writ petition against the
order Ext.P3 dated 03.09.2019 levying damages under Section
14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF Act') as
also against Ext.P7 notice demanding the said amount. Due to
delay in remittance of contributions to the provident fund, the
4th respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 14B of
the EPF Act and also levied interest under Section 7Q of the Act.
Thereafter the appellants had challenged Ext.P3 proceedings
imposing damages before the Central Government Industrial
2025:KER:72475
W.A No.1494 of 2022
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam in appeal under Section
7-I of the EPF Act. Vide order dated 16.11.2021, Ext.P6, the
Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by directing the appellants to
remit 80% of the damages imposed. Thereafter, on 25.03.2022,
the 3rd respondent issued a demand notice to the appellants
directing them to pay an amount of Rs.9,73,187/- after reducing
20% of the damages imposed out of Rs.12,16,484/-. Being
aggrieved, the appellants had filed the writ petition.
3. Learned Single Judge did not find the order of the
appellate authority reducing damages to the extent of 80% to be
interfered and unreasonable rather it is justiciable. At that
stage, learned counsel for the appellants requested for payment
of the outstanding amount in instalments. Accordingly, learned
Single Judge permitted the appellants to deposit the amount in
10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 01.10.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge did not
2025:KER:72475
W.A No.1494 of 2022
consider the fact that the EPF Department is in the habit of
issuing orders under standard printed forms especially when
they exercise quasi judicial functions. Various factors such as
the appellant-hospital have been closed down and all the
employees have already been terminated from service, have to be
adjudicated before levying penalty under Section 14B of the EPF
Act, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in some
decisions. In such a situation, a lenient view ought to have been
adopted. Learned Single Judge without interfering in the matter
only granted instalments. Being aggrieved, the appellants are
before this Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed
the prayer and submitted that there has been a huge delay in
depositing the EPF contribution on the part of the appellants.
The contribution relates to the period from April 2013 to October
2018 and the total damages were assessed to Rs.12,16,484/-. The
hospital was closed in 2019. The damages claimed are for the
2025:KER:72475
W.A No.1494 of 2022
period when the hospital was in operation. Thereafter there was
huge delay in making payment. Therefore, the order passed by
the appellate authority as well as the Industrial Tribunal and the
High Court needs no interference. However, when the learned
Single Judge was not inclined to interfere with the petition,
learned counsel for the appellants agreed to deposit the amount
but they sought some instalments. Accordingly, learned Single
Judge granted 10 instalments. At this stage, learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that this Court can exercise its
extraordinary powers and may be pleased to reduce further
reasonable amount so that the appellants may be in a position to
deposit the amount since they are facing financial hardship.
6. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
7. Since the learned counsel for the appellants have
already agreed to deposit the amount in instalments and taking
into consideration the financial hardship being faced by the
appellants, we modify the judgment passed by the learned Single
2025:KER:72475
W.A No.1494 of 2022
Judge to the effect that instead of ten instalments, the amount
shall be deposited in 15 equal monthly instalments starting from
10th October 2025. Therefore, as the merits of the case are
concerned, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge. The EPF Act also provides for
damages and penalty if there is delay in payment of the
contribution.
We find no merit or substance in the appeal. Accordingly,
the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
