Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17797
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
BALAMURALEEDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/14300/2020
R.T.PRADEEP, SMT.M.BINDUDAS, SRI.K.C.HARISH, SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ, NITA.N.S., SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM), SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SMT.A.V.INDIRA, SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SRI.T.S.ANANDAPADMANABHAN, SMT.LIYA ELZA ALEX, SHRI VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON
Employees have a right to claim provident fund benefits despite employer's failures in making contributions.
Headnote:
Provident Fund - Employee Rights - Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7A, 7Q, 8F, 14B - The court directed the EPFO to take action to realize dues owed to retired employees who have not received their provident fund benefits due to employer's defaults.
Fact of the Case:
Retired employees sought relief for payment of pension and dues from Kerala Automobiles Ltd., which defaulted on contributions to the Employees Provident Fund.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the employer's repeated attempts to stall payments and ordered the EPFO to ensure statutory dues are paid to the retired employees.
Issues: Whether the employees are entitled to receive their provident fund benefits considering the employer's non-compliance with statutory obligations.
Ratio Decidendi: Employees are entitled to statutory benefits under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act despite employer defaults.
Final Decision: The court directed the EPFO to proceed under Section 8F of the Act to disburse the dues to the employees.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners, 62 in number, are the retired employees of Kerala Automobiles Ltd., 3rd respondent, a public sector undertaking of Government of Kerala covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 have approached this Court for provident fund pension and amount on their superannuation by asking for a specific relief.
2. Respondent No.3 had been defaulter in not making the contribution under the provisions of Act 1952, which entailed into proceedings/enquiry under Section 7A and order passed thereon which had already attained finality. As a consequential action proceedings under Section 7Q and 14B were also initiated. Respondent No.3 had made a deliberate attempt installing the payment of the amount by filing numerous writ petitions. This Court vide judgment dated 14.6.2022 dismissed the writ petition bearing No. 24293 of 2021 and the appeal filed against the same has also been dismissed.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 has been attempting to stall the payment by filing perpetual writ petitions and they have been left unattended. This Court was apprised of the writ bearing No. W.P.(C) No.24293 of 2021 and on 26.7.2022 had passed the following order:
On going through affidavit, it is evident that the 3rd respondent has been dilly-dallying in payment of the dues under the EPF as not only one but 7 to 8 writ petitions have been filed trying to stall the payment of the statutory dues and further release the same to the employees/petitioners. Though certain amount have been deposited but not the entire, culminated into the inevitable proceedings under Section 7Q and 14B of the 1952 Act and there is an interim order passed in W.P(C).24293/2021.
In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to tag the writ petition bearing No.24293/2021 along with this writ petition and post for tomorrow as learned counsel representing the parties are also the same.
As regards the contributions already deposited by the 3rd respondent/establishment the handicappedness expressed by the EPF is that the petitioners have not submitted their Provident Fund Account Number or Universal Account Number and therefore, it is not possible for them to deposit the amount. The aforementioned predicament shall also be considered tomorrow.
4. On coming to know that the writ petition W.P.(C) No.24293 of 2021 has already been dismissed on 14.6.2022, called upon the counsel representing the EPF as to what appropriate and legal steps have been taken to realize the amount.
5. Learned counsel appearing for R6, EPFO informs the court that as per the counter, the notice under Section 8F of the Act was already issued on 1.6.2021 but owing to the interim order in W.P.(C) No.24293 of 2021, no further action could be taken and the writ petition has been dismissed on 14.6.2022. Further procedure in accordance with law will be taken to realize the amount.
6. Learned counsel appearing for R3 and R4, Kerala Automobiles Ltd., submitted that substantial amount has already been deposited.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The conduct of the respondent No.3 has already been noticed by this Court in the order dated 26.7.2022 (supra). Without commenting further and noticing that the petitioners retired long back and have not been paid the statutory dues which they are entitled to, in the absence of any stay granted by this Court, I dispose of the writ petition by issuing directions to the Regional Provident Commissioner to pursue the proceedings under Section 8F , in accordance with law. As regards the disbursement of the amount already paid and received by the EPF, counsel representing the EPF submits that in the absence of the account number and the register number of the petitioners, the amount cannot be appropriated in the accounts. Counsel for the petitioners undertakes to supply the copy of the account and EPF number to the concerned departme
