Allowed

Kerala Stae Ex-Services League v. Union of India

Kerala HC17 Feb 2020WP(C)/4255/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of appeals before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for default due to lack of notice service. The Court held that the petitioner was prejudiced and ordered the appeals to be restored.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal set aside; appeals restored for hearing.

Kerala Stae Ex-Services League Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).NO.4255 OF 2020(F)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KERALA STATE EX-SERVICES LEAGUE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KANNUR VIMUKTHA BHADA BHAVANAM, BURNACHERY, KANNUR-670013, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY R.K.DAMODARAN

¶8

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.117, VK COMPLEX FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670001

¶12

3 THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ERNAKJLAM, 38/377 A-2, KARITHALA LANE KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016

¶13

4 RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION P.B NO.117, FORT BUILDINGS, V.K.COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670001

¶14

SRI P VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG, SRI K. C SANTHOSH KUMAR SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.4255 OF 2020(F)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner herein, the Kerala State Ex-Services League, is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The said establishment is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) and the sundry schemes framed thereunder. For failure of the petitioner herein to remit contributions for the period from 7/2007 to 1/2013, proceedings were initiated under Section 7A of the Act. By Ext.P1 order dated 18.11.2014, they were ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,78,220/- to the respective provident fund accounts. Simultaneously, amounts were assessed under Section 14B of the Act and Ext.P2 order was passed.

¶20

The petitioner herein, through its counsel, challenged the orders under Section 7A and 14B by preferring separate appeals before the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi. The appeals were registered and were pending. Later, the appeals were made over to the Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore from where, the cases were made over to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court at Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, notice pertaining to the

¶21

WP(C).No.4255 OF 2020(F)

¶22

¶23

transfer of proceedings of the matters to Ernakulam were not served on their counsel. On 06.11.2019, the matter was taken up and the appeals were dismissed for default by Exts.P6 and P7 orders. The aforesaid orders are under challenge.

¶24

Sri. K.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that prejudice of an irreparable variety has been caused by the dismissal of the appeals without even affording an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal smacks of arbitrariness and is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice, contends the learned counsel.

¶25

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

I have heard the submissions advanced. It is discernible from Exts.P4 and P5 that valid contentions have been raised by the petitioner herein in their appeal preferred before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The fact that no notice was served on the counsel who had filed vakalat for and on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal is not controverted by the respondents. It appears that the case was called on 6.11.2019 and on the same day itself, the petition was dismissed for default for non appearance. The petitioner herein is a Society registered under Act XII of

¶27

WP(C).No.4255 OF 2020(F)

¶28

¶29

1955 and it prima facie appears from the appeal memorandum that they have raised valid contentions. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

¶30

In the result, this Writ Petition will stand allowed. Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam will stand set aside and the appeals are restored. The petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal on 28.02.2020 and pursue the matter.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WP(C).No.4255 OF 2020(F)

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KL/KNR/18837/ENF.I(2)/7A/2014- 15/2993 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7A DATED 18.11.2014
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KL/KNR/18837/ENF.I(2)/DAMAGES/18837/ 2015-16 ISSUED DATED 23.07.2015
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.SB- 6/13570/85 DATED 10.06.1985 OF THE DIRECTORATE OF SAINIK WELFARE; GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 8.6.2015 WITH RESPECT TO EXT P1 ORDER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.8.2015 WITH RESPECT TO EXT P2 ORDER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.11.2019 IN APPEAL NO.183/2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.11.2019 IN APPEAL NO.308/2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KRKNR1959/0018837/01/04/2016/502/35 DATED 09.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶40

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

Kerala Stae Ex-Services League v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Stae Ex-Services League v. Union of India

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

Nisha Josey Vs Secretary

Anilkumar Vs the Station House Officer

Asharaf Vs the Chairperson

Omkary Venkidesh Vs State of Kerala

Sherif P. Vs State of Kerala

The Managing Director Vs the State of Kerala