Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58644
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
SUKUMARAN.A – Appellant
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTING THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 39398 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.C.V.MILTON
For the Respondents: SRI.AKHIL SURESH, STANDING COUNSEL
Provident Fund amounts due to employees, as contributions solely by them, cannot be withheld indefinitely, regardless of the employer's financial difficulties.
Headnote:The writ petition concerns the non-payment of Provident Fund amounts due to retired employees of the KSRTC. The court cited precedent cases establishing that the funds are composed solely of employee contributions, thereby implicating the employer's custodial role. Despite the financial crisis faced by KSRTC, the court emphasized that withheld Provident Fund amounts cannot remain unpaid indefinitely. The issues addressed included the legality of withholding Provident Fund dues and the associated financial crisis of the KSRTC. The court reasoned that despite financial challenges, the contributions made by employees must be returned without undue delay. The court directed that the Provident Fund amounts due to the petitioners be paid, along with statutory interests, within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-payment of provident fund (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. employer's explanation for withholding payment (Para 3) |
| 3. court's directive on fund payments (Para 4 , 5) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2025 The petitioners are retired employees of KSRTC.
They are before this Court alleging that the Provident Fund amounts due to them have not been paid.
2. Relying on the judgments in Soman v.
KSRTC [(2005) 2 ILR (Ker) 556] and Sharmathali P.K and others v. KSRTC (W.P.(C) No.24403 of 2023), the petitioners contended that the Provident Fund is a fund constituted by the contributions made by the employee alone and the employer is only a custodian of the fund. Therefore, withholding of Provident Fund is highly arbitrary and illegal.
3. Standing Counsel entered on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that KSRTC is facing severe financial crisis and is finding it difficult to honour the salary bills of the serving employees. KSRTC has taken steps to generate more revenue and disburse the terminal benefits due to its employees. The petitioners' applications for payment of Provident Fund dues will be honoured as and when funds are available and on the basis of the seniority.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. It may be true that the KSRTC is in financial difficulties. But, Provident Fund amounts are the amounts deposited by the employees. The said amount cannot be withheld indefinitely.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay the Provident Fund amounts due to the petitioner with statutory interests within a period of three months.
