Disposed

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

Kerala HC7 Feb 2013WP(C)/5960/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition challenging damages levied for delayed provident fund contributions. The Court held that no absolute rule governs penalty fixation and mandated a reassessment at 30% of the assessed damages.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reassess the penalty at 30% of the amount levied and communicate to the petitioner; petitioner to pay within one month.

The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. 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. 5960 of 2008 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REGD. OFFICE AT PLANTATION CORPORATION BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-686 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.BABU THOMAS.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKARA, S.C.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.1806, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.117, V.K.COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670 001.

¶12

3. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 9TH FLOOR, MAYUR BHAVAN, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEAR SUPER MARKET, OPP.SHANKER MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶13

BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,S.C.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Prv.

¶16

W.P.(C). NO.5960/2008-H:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KR/KNR/11738/ENF/.1(5)/DAMAGES/2006/1458 DTD. 24/08/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶20

EXT.P.1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KR/KNR/3454/ENF/1(1)/DAMAGES/2006/1462 DTD. 24/08/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶21

EXT.P.1.C: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KR/KNR/11006/ENF/1(5)/DAMAGES/2006/1460 DTD. 24/08/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶22

EXT.P.1.D: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KR/KK/2634/DAM. CELL/ENF/1(4)/2006/5569 DTD. 03/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.1.

¶23

EXT.P.1.E: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KR/KK/11933/ENF/DAM. CELL/II(1)/2006/6306 DTD. 24/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.1.

¶24

EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 31/08/06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. AGAINST EXT.P.1.A ORDER.

¶25

EXT.P.2.B: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 31/08/06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. AGAINST EXT.P.1.B. ORDER.

¶26

EXT.P.2.C: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 31/08/06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. AGAINST EXT.P.1.C. ORDER.

¶27

EXT.P.2.D: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 18/12/06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. AGAINST EXT.P.1.D ORDER.

¶28

EXT.P.2.E: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 28/12/06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. AGAINST EXT.P.1.E ORDER.

¶29

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/10/2006 IN W.P.(C).NO.26705/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶30

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 30/10/07 OF THE R.3. IN A.T.A. NO. 494(7)/2006 ETC.,

¶31

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/10/07 OF THE R.3. IN A.T.A. NO. 322 (7)/2006.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN EXT.P.2.D APPEAL NO.A.T.A. 35(7) 2007.

¶34

EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN EXT.P.2.E. APPEAL NO. A.T.A. 36(7) 2007.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

B.P.RAY, J.

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

¶40

W.P.(C)No.5960 OF 2008

¶41

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

¶42

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2013

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges Exts.P1(a) to (e) and P4 orders passed by the respondents.

¶45

The Petitioner, Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, is a public sector Government owned company having its registered office at Kottayam. The issue involved in this case is that the first and second respondents levied damages for the alleged delay in making provident fund contributions for the period July to October 2001 in the petitioner's five estates. The appeals filed by the petitioner have been disposed of reducing the damages to 70% as assessed by the respondent Assistant Commissioner.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Tribunal did not consider the crucial issue that the wages payable to the employees of the petitioner for the period July to October 2001 were foregone pursuant to a settlement between the petitioner and the Unions representing the employees of the petitioner. The provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Provident Funds Scheme 1952 make it clear that the

¶47

W.P.(C)No.5960 OF 2008

¶48

:: Page numbers ::

¶49

provident fund contributions are payable only in respect of the wages paid or payable for a particular wage period. Moreover, in the impugned order the damages have been quantified without any basis. It is settled law that the respondents are bound to exercise the discretion in imposing penalty under Section 14B on a reasonable basis and with regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶50

When this writ petition came up for hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in a similar appeal, the first respondent 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.

¶51

The learned Standing Counsel for EPFO submits that the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner has filed an appeal against the said judgment and stay has also been obtained.

¶52

In view of the rival contentions, I am of the considered view that no hard and fast rule can be prescribed for fixation of penalty and it depends on the facts of each case. In my considered view, the imposition of

¶53

W.P.(C)No.5960 OF 2008

¶54

:: Page numbers ::

¶55

damages at the rate of 30% will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to reassess the penalty at 30% of the amount levied as damages and communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay the amount within one month from the date of the order of reassessment.

¶56

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶58

jes

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Babu A.K. Vs State