SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
M/S. KALPAKA TRANSPORT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44888 OF 2025



Pending statutory appeals require suspension of recovery actions under the 1952 Act.

Headnote:The petitioner, a private limited company, challenges the attachment of its bank accounts by Provident Fund Authorities during pending statutory appeals under the 1952 Act. The Court finds that the recovery actions should be held in abeyance due to ongoing appeals before the Tribunal. The Provident Fund Department is entitled to recover when no interim relief is sought. The petitioner’s bank accounts’ attachment will not proceed until stay petitions are resolved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

ST MONDAY, THE 1 DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 44888 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S:

M/S. KALPAKA TRANSPORT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.V. CHANDRAN, S/O. P.V. SAMI, AGED 85, KERALA KALA, AZCHAVATTAM, MANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 BY ADVS.

SMT.A.K.PREETHA SMT.DEVIKA MOHAN SMT.RESHMA R.KRISHNAN SHRI.DEVADATH G.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

2 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, HEAD OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,14, BHIKAJI KAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PIN - 110066

3 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006

4 RECOVERY OFFICER, EPF ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 BY ADV SMT.O.M. SHALINA, DSGI.

BY ADV SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.11.2025, THE COURT ON 01.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of parcel and cargo movement. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the fact that when statutory appeals are pending against orders imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952 Act’) before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), the Provident Fund Authorities have proceeded to attach the bank accounts of the petitioner company.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, owning to the fact that there is no Presiding officer in the Tribunal, the petitioner is unable to move the appeal and seek for interim reliefs. It is submitted that the attachment of the bank accounts is causing serious prejudice to the day-to-

day working of the petitioner firm

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization would submit that, in the absence of any interim order either from this Court or from the Tribunal, the Provident Fund Department was well within its rights to proceed with the recovery. It is submitted that, it was open to the petitioner to approach this Court and seek for interim reliefs, pending consideration of the matter by the Tribunal. It is submitted that, having failed to do so, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the attachment orders are illegal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, I am of the view that since the appeals are pending before the Tribunal against the orders imposing damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act, along with the applications for stay, the proceedings initiated by the recovery officer of the Provident Fund Department attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner - company can be kept in abeyance till the stay petitions are taken up and decided by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the orders attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance and shall not be enforced till the stay petitions filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the appeals filed against the orders imposing damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act, are taken up and considered by the Tribunal.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 44888 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.

KR/KKD/4473/RECOVERY/2025 DATED 19.11.2025 ISSUED TO HDFC BANK,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top