Allowed

Malabar Cements Labour Contract Co-Op.So v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC7 Feb 2013WP(C)/3798/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced the provident fund penalty imposed on a labour contract society from 100% to 30%, directing payment within three months. It further held the principal employer liable to pay the amount as the society was no longer functioning, invoking Section 30(3) of the EPF Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced to 30% to be paid within three months; Principal employer directed to pay the amount.

Malabar Cements Labour Contract Co-Op.So Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/18TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 3798 of 2011 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. MALABAR CEMENTS LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.P.946, WALAYAR.P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678624, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETRARY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.) SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, CALICUT, P.B.NO.1806, RANJIPALAM.P.O. KOZHIKODE-673006, KERALA STATE.

¶11

2. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., REPRESENTED BY

¶12

ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, WALAYAR.P.O., PALAKKAD-678624.

¶13

3. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE

¶14

TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINAR, CORE II 4TH FLOOR LAKSHMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR NEW DELHI-110092.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. R2 BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.)

¶16

SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 3798 of 2011 (Y)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DT. 25.5.1995 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, PALAKKAD DATED 12.3.1997.

¶24

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ENTERRED INTO BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS WORKMEN DATED 26.8.1997

¶25

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 1.12.1999 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ,KOZHIKODE.

¶26

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONNER DT. 15.1.2001.

¶27

EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.6.2001

¶28

EXT.P7. COPY OF THE APPEAL (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 26.7.2001 AGAINST EXT.P6.

¶29

EXT.P8. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.12.2010.

¶30

EXT.P9. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 3.12.1996 ALLOTTING CODE NUMBER TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶37

W.P.(C)No.3798 OF 2011

¶38

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2013

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges Exts.P6 and P8 orders issued by the respondents.

¶41

Petitioner is a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. The second respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner used to engage contractors to supply labour for various items of works. The workers so engaged are being paid wages by the second respondent through the petitioner. There was a dispute as to whether the petitioner or the second respondent is to pay the Employees Provident Fund Contribution. The employer’s part of the contribution was also paid by the second respondent through the petitioner. Due to the dispute, there was delay in remittance of the employer’s part of the contribution. Therefore, the first respondent imposed damages to the tune of Rs.9,82,425/- on the petitioner alleging delay in payment of Provident Fund Contribution for the period from 5/1991 to 3/2000. Appeal submitted by the petitioner before the third respondent stands dismissed by Ext.P8 order. Hence this writ petition.

¶42

W.P.(C)No.3798 OF 2011

¶43

:: Page numbers ::

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar case, the Tribunal had reduced the damages to 22%, inclusive of 12% interest per annum. The said order has become final and the Department has reassessed the damages in terms of the said order. He further submits that in W.P.(C)Nos.1399, 1430, 1489, 6042 and 7323 of 2006, a learned Single Judge of this Court has reduced the damages levied under Section 14B to 25% of the amount assessed.

¶45

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the E.P.F. Organisation also and perused the materials available on record.

¶46

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that 100% penalty has been imposed for non-payment of the dues. In a batch of cases this court has reduced the penalty from 100% to 30%. Following the aforesaid decisions in the case also, I modify the impugned order and reduce the amount to 30% which shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall also calculate and intimate the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

There is a dispute between the Malabar Cements Ltd. and the Society as to who shall pay the amount particularly when the Society is remitted contribution. In view of the provisions contained in 30(3) of the

¶48

W.P.(C)No.3798 OF 2011

¶49

:: Page numbers ::

¶50

Employees Provident Fund Scheme, the principal employer is liable for the payment. Further the society is not now functioning. Therefore, I direct the Principal employer i.e., the Malabar Cements Ltd. to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time.

¶51

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶53

jes

Malabar Cements Labour Contract Co-Op.So v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malabar Cements Labour Contract Co-Op.So v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aysha Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Employees Provident Funds Appellate

Sakthan. N. Vs K.K. Divakaran

Poovankulathil Thottam Puthiyapurayil Vs Kaniyarvalappil Nabeesa

P.J.Paul Vs State

Babu A.K. Vs State

The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. Vs the Asst.Provident Fund Commr. Kozhikode