Dismissed

K.A Gopinathan v. Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC14 Dec 2018WP(C)/33212/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a lenient view to petitioners facing arrest for provident fund arrears. The court directed the respondents to allow payment of the entire due amount along with interest in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from December 18, 2018, holding installment payment as superior to incarceration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to pay entire amounts due with interest in ten equal monthly instalments commencing 18.12.2018; default will disentitle from this benefit.

K.A Gopinathan Vs Employees Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 33212 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 K.A GOPINATHAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O K.C.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR VETUVAR KANDI HOUSE THENGILAKADAVU CHERUPPA KOZHIKODE-673661

¶8

2 N. SETHUNATHAN, AGED 69 YEARS S/O. GOVINDANKUTTY MENOKI, PATTATHIL HOUSE, POST KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

3 T. GOPINATHAN, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.KA.A SUKUMARAN MENOKI, THOTTAPAYIL HOUSE, NEAR THAMPI ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYMENT PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN POST ERANHIPALAM KOZHIKODE-673006

¶13

2 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYMENT PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, POST ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 006.

¶14

-2-

¶15

W.P.(C). No. 33212 of 2018

¶16

3 ORIENT TRADING COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, T. SURESAN, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. K.A SUKUMARAN MENOKI, NELLIPUNAM VEETTIL, POST PALATH, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE 673 611.

¶17

BY ADV. DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, EPF ORG.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioners has faced the recovery proceedings for

¶21

Provident Fund arrears. It seems they began in 2003. To this day, the petitioners have not complied with the demand. As seen from the record, recently in July 2018, the petitioners received the Ext.P2 series notices requiring them to show cause why they should not be committed to a civil prison for default. True, the petitioners, through Exts.P4, P5 and P6, replied. In fact, they have denied their liability and have also taken up the plea of limitation. Finally, on 19.09.2018, the second respondent issued the Ext.P7 notice stating it to be the last chance.

¶22

-3-

¶23

W.P.(C). No. 33212 of 2018

¶24

Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶25

The petitioners' counsel relies on Regional Provident Fund

¶26

Commissioner, Hyderabad v. Deccan Foam Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Narsapur¹ besides referring to Section 8B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. She asserts that arrest is the last resort. Before the authorities take recourse to it, they must exhaust other remedies, such as attaching and selling the properties of the establishment.

¶27

Now abandoning all the pleas, the petitioners' counsel pleads financial difficulty. Faced with arrest under the EPF Act, the petitioners want the Court may take a lenient view and allow them to pay arrears in instalments. Indeed, the learned Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents has objected to any facility of instalments to the petitioners.

¶28

It seems that the petitioners have been in dire financial straits. Instead of letting them suffer the drastic measure of arrest and incarceration, I reckon the Department may recover the amounts, if not all at once, in instalments. That facility of

¶29

1 2005 (105) FLR 1184

¶30

-4-

¶31

W.P.(C). No. 33212 of 2018

¶32

instalments must include the petitioners' paying the interest as well from the beginning that is from 2003.

¶33

Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' must pay the entire amounts due along with interest from 2003 in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 18.12.2018. Default in any single month on the petitioners' part will disentitle to them to the benefit of this judgment.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

das

¶38

The date “18-12-2018” mentioned in the last paragraph of the Judgment dated 14-12-2018 in W.P.(C) No. 33212/2018 (B) is corrected as “18-02-2019” as per the order dated 24-01-2019 in I.A. No. 01/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 33212/2018 (B).

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Joint Registrar

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 33212 of 2018

¶42

-5-

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10-07-2018 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6-7-2018 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 6-7-2018 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIOENR DATED 12-08-2018 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 12-08-2018 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 12-08-2018 EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 19-09-2018

K.A Gopinathan v. Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.A Gopinathan v. Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Azhar Vs the District Labour Officer

Radhakrishnan Nair. S Vs Union of India

Kerala Transport Development Finance Vs the Union of India

K.J.Thomas Vs K.S.Shaji

M/S. Chackolas Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India

Vinod Kumar Vs the Chief Welfare Fund Officer