Disposed

Sunilkumar G. v. the District Labour Officer

Kerala HC13 Oct 2017WP(C)/4214/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, employees sought recovery of EPF and ESI contributions deducted but not credited to their accounts. The Court directed statutory authorities to expeditiously recover dues from employers initiating proceedings under relevant acts and to settle benefits or return deducted amounts based on recovery.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to take expeditious steps to recover dues from employers within two months and to settle employee benefits or return deducted contributions.

Sunilkumar G. Vs the District Labour Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/21ST ASWINA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 4214 of 2017 (B)

¶6

PETITIONERS :

¶7

SUNILKUMAR G.

¶8

¶9

AGED 44 YEARS, S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, DEVI KRIPA, PONAKAM, MAVELIKKARA. PIN. 690101.

¶10

2. SHAJI V.

¶11

THOTTATHUKKAVIL HOUSE, PAZHAVEEDU PO, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SMT.SARITHA THOMAS

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER COLLECTORATE PO, KOTTAYAM. 686002.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, REVENUE TOWER, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. 686101.

¶16

¶17

THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. 686668.

¶18

¶19

4. THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR-686668.

¶20

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 686101.

¶21

WP(C).No. 4214 of 2017 (B)

¶22

6. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM.686002.

¶23

7. THE KERALA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM-1, 1ST FLOOR, BHARATHI BUILDINGS, PULIMOODU JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM.1.

¶24

8. VARGHESE K.C S/O CHANDAPILLAI, KAKKAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, CHANGANASSERY PO, PROPRIETOR OF KARIKINETH SILKS, CHANGANASSERY, PIN. 686101.

¶25

9. REENA VARGHESE, S/O K.C. VARGHESE, KAKKAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, CHANGANASSERY PO, PROPRIETOR OF KARIKINETH SILKS, CHANGANASSERY -686101.

¶26

10. THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, CHANGANASSERY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. 686101.

¶27

R1,R2 R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, BY SRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, R4 BY SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN, SC, BY SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, R7 BY SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, BY T.P. PRADEEP R8 & R9 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM R9 BY SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SENIOR ADVOCATE R9 BY ADV. SRI.RONY JOSE

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

WP(C).No. 4214 of 2017 (B)

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶33

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES WORKING UNDER RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9.

¶34

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE UNION.

¶35

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE UNION.

¶36

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE KVAT, 2005 IN RESPECT OF KARIKKINETH SILKS BY SHOWING THE NAME OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT AS MANAGING PARTNER.

¶37

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CARD OF THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER THE KERALA SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT WELFARE FUND SCHEME.

¶38

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE PRINT OUT FROM THE E.P.F ORGANIZATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTION BY RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9.

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶45

W.P.(C). No. 4214 of 2017

¶46

===================================================== Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2017

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

The petitioners have approached his Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 and 7 to collect he EPF, ESI and welfare fund dues from the business concern owned by respondents 8 and 9. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioners, who were employees under the 8^th and 9^th respondents have a case that, although amounts were deducted from the wages paid to them, towards their contribution to the EPF organisation as also the ESI corporation, the said amounts deducted from their wages were not credited to their accounts with the said organisations. It is therefore that they have approached this Court seeking the reliefs aforementioned. By an interim order dated 03.03.2017, this Court had directed the 2^nd respondent to inspect the premises of the 8^th and 9^th respondents and to take the entire stock and value the same with the assistance of the 6^th respondent. The 8^th and 9^th respondents were restrained from removing the stock, and a direction was also given to the 10^th respondent to freeze the account of respondents 8 and 9 and not permit the said respondents from withdrawing any amounts from the said accounts. The interim order dated 03.03.2017 was subsequently

¶49

-2-

¶50

W.P.(C). No. 4214 of 2017

¶51

modified by another order dated 03.04.2017 by which it was made clear that the earlier order dated 03.03.2017 would operate as against the current account of respondents 8 and 9 and that the 8^th and 9^th respondents are free to operate the SB Account.

¶52

Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents as also by the Government Pleader on behalf of the official respondents in the State. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, it is stated that dues have been assessed under Section 7A of the EPF Act for the period from April 2013 to October 2015 in an amount of Rs.10,03,184/-. It is stated however that, against the said order under Section 7A for the aforesaid period, the 8^th and 9^th respondents have preferred an appeal before the EPF Tribunal, in which, pursuant to a deposit of Rs.1,00,318/- a stay of recovery of the assessed amounts has been granted by the Tribunal. As regards the period from November 2015 to July 2016, it is stated that an order under Section 7A was passed assessing the establishment to an amount of Rs.7,06,569/and that for the said period also the 8^th and 9^th respondents preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and on payment of a predeposit of Rs.70,657/-, the Tribunal has granted a stay against

¶53

-3-

¶54

W.P.(C). No. 4214 of 2017

¶55

recovery of the assessed amount, pending disposal of the appeal. It is also stated that the 3^rd respondent has assessed penal damages under Section 14B of the Act an interest under Section 7.2 of the Act for the period from April 2014 to May 2015 and further that they will be initiating proceedings under Section 8B to 8G of the Act for recovery of the said damages.

¶56

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent, and relying on the same, the learned standing counsel would submit that the 8^th and 9^th respondents have paid the required dues under the ESI Act for the period upto March 2015 and that they are in default of the payment of dues for the period from April 2015 till date. It is stated that the 4^th respondent is proposing to initiate action against the respondents 8 and 9 for non payment of the dues for the period subsequent to April 2015.

¶57

The learned counsel for the 7^th respondent would submit that the proceedings have also been initiated against respondents 8 and 9 for recovery of dues under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act and that the said steps are being pursued against the said respondents.

¶58

W.P.(C). No. 4214 of 2017

¶59

-4-

¶60

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for ESI and EPF as also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 9.

¶61

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that, since it is apparent from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the 3^rd , 4^th and 7^th respondents that steps are afoot for recovery of the outstanding amounts from respondents 8 and 9, and the proceedings are at various stages of adjudication before the authorities under the respective enactment, this writ petition can be closed by directing respondents 3, 4 and 7 to take expeditious steps to recover the amounts due from respondents 8 and 9 in respect of the period, for which action has not already been initiated by them, without any further delay and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event of said respondents realising the amounts due from respondents 8 and 9, a decision shall be taken by the said

¶62

-5-

¶63

W.P.(C). No. 4214 of 2017

¶64

respondents on the benefits to be conferred on the petitioners herein and, if the benefits as contemplated under the respective statutory enactments cannot be extended to the said petitioners, then the said respondents shall consider returning the contribution deducted from the salary of the said petitioners, to them, within a reasonable period, after the realisation of the same from respondents 8 and 9.

¶65

sd/-

¶66

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶67

das/ 19.10.2017

Sunilkumar G. v. the District Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunilkumar G. v. the District Labour Officer

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

A.V Sidheek Vs the Authorized Officer

Local Level Monitoring Committee Vs Hamza P.T.

Mar Baselios College of Engg & Technology Vs the Corporation of Trivandrum

The Manager Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Joy Joseph Vs Toby Thomas

K.Krishnan Vs B.N.Nagarajan