IQUBAL V.M., K.F. ANTONY, INDULEKHA K., WILSON C. BABY, JOHNSON VARKEY, BALAKRISHNAN NAIR K.M., KONDURU MURALI MOHAN RAJU, P. HUSSAIN KOYA, PRADEEP KUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, VIJAYAN P.N., RAJAN R., GILBERT ANTONY, K.S. PRASEETHAN, AJIMON A.R., SADANANDAN L., SHANAVAS T.M., JAYACHANDRAN K.G., ROY K.J., GOPALAKRISHNAN C., AZIZ N.B., FULTON J. PARATHAZHAM, MADHUSOODANAN C.V., N.E. KAREEM, DINESHAN T.S., MAYA A., K.K. RAVIVARMA THAMPAN, CHERIAN M.T., K.B. VIJAYAKUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED (FACT)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
IQUBAL V.M., K.F. ANTONY, INDULEKHA K., WILSON C. BABY, JOHNSON VARKEY, BALAKRISHNAN NAIR K.M., KONDURU MURALI MOHAN RAJU, P. HUSSAIN KOYA, PRADEEP KUMAR RAMACHANDRAN, VIJAYAN P.N., RAJAN R., GILBERT ANTONY, K.S. PRASEETHAN, AJIMON A.R., SADANANDAN L., SHANAVAS T.M., JAYACHANDRAN K.G., ROY K.J., GOPALAKRISHNAN C., AZIZ N.B., FULTON J. PARATHAZHAM, MADHUSOODANAN C.V., N.E. KAREEM, DINESHAN T.S., MAYA A., K.K. RAVIVARMA THAMPAN, CHERIAN M.T., K.B. VIJAYAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED (FACT) – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. SANJITH, C.S. SINDHU KRISHNAH, NAMITHA SUSAN MARCOSE, HRISHIKA MARIYA JOSE
For the Respondents: C. DINESH, CGC, SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL, M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S. PRASANTH, S. K JOHN MATHAI, JOSON MANAVALAN, KURYAN THOMAS, PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, RAJA KANNAN, O.M. SHALINA, DSGI

Table of Content
1. court directs processing of joint option forms. (Para 1)
2. grievances highlighted and addressed except for few petitioners. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct respondents 2 and 3 to process the joint option forms preferred by the petitioners in accordance with the judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B. and Others [2022 (7) KHC 12]

2. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the grievance of all the petitioners, except petitioners 7, 10, 11, 22 and 25, have been redressed. This is recorded.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the cases of petitioners 7, 10, 11, 22 and 25 in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15515

Cases Referred (1)