Endorsement of joint option forms for pension benefits does not establish employer status for liability regarding employees who retired prior to the company's takeover.

ORDER

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The 5^th respondent-Company in W.P.(C) No.16786/2023 is the review petitioner.

2. The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

(i) If the petitioners tender joint option forms before the 5^th respondent, then the 5^th respondent shall endorse the joint option forms on the petitioners satisfying other requirements, if any. The 5^th respondent shall endorse and return such joint option forms given by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of tendering such forms by the petitioners.

(ii) It is made clear that the above direction is given only to enable the petitioners to avail the benefit of PF pension to which they are entitled to. This direction will not in any manner affect the legal issue whether the 5^th respondent KPPL is the employer of HNL employees who retired prior to 2021.

(iii) This order shall not in any manner affect or influence any other pending or future litigation or proceedings between the EPFO and the 5^th respondent before any other Court, Tribunal or Forum.

(iv) If the petitioners submit joint option forms in physical forms duly endorsed by the 5^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent shall accept and process the same.

(v) On receipt of joint option forms of the petitioners, the 3^rd respondent shall process the joint options on the basis of the available documents provided by the 5^th respondent and finalise the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of joint option.

(vi) A decision in this regard shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another (supra)

(vii) The issue whether the 5^th respondent has any liability towards employees like the petitioners who retired from service prior to the take over of HNL, would depend on and would be subject to the decision to be taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.31624/2023 .

3. The review petitioner submits that the direction of this Court given to the review petitioner to endorse the joint option forms on the petitioners satisfying other requirements would cause undue hardship to the review petitioner. Once the review petitioner endorses joint option forms, the EPFO authorities would treat the petitioners as employer of the petitioners, which would cause hardship to the review petitioner.

4. As the issue is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it would also affect the outcome of the case pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The relief granted by this Court is not in accordance with the prayers made by the petitioners. These are errors apparent on the face of the records of the case, contended the review petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the respondents in the review petition.

6. The judgment was delivered by this Court as the original employer of the petitioners, HNL, is no more in the picture and it would be harsh if pensioners like the writ petitioners are denied the benefit of revision of pension flowing from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. While directing the review petitioner who has taken over the erstwhile company to endorse joint options given by the writ petitioners, this Court has made it clear that the direction will not in any manner affect the legal issue whether the review petitioner is employer of HNL employees who retired prior to 2021.

8. This Court also made clear that the issue whether the review petitioner has any liability towards employees like the writ petitioners who retired from service prior to the take over of HNL, would depend on and would be subject to the decision to be taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.31624/2023 .