Allowed

Babu M.I. v. Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC20 Sept 2021WP(C)/19494/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, retired Abkari workers, sought writ directions for disbursal of Employees Provident Fund amounts from 2009. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Corporation to forward Form 19 to the Provident Fund Commissioner, who must then process the claim within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st Respondent to forward Form 19 to 2nd Respondent within 3 weeks; Direction to 2nd Respondent to disburse benefits within 2 months of receipt.

Babu M.I. Vs Kerala State Beverages (M & M)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 19494 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943

¶6

WP(C) NO. 19494 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 BABU M.I.,S/o IYPE, MADAVANA HOUSE, THADIYAMBADU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602.

¶9

2 KALPAKAVALLY K.P., W/O. KALADHARAN, 409, MEZHUKIL VEEDU, CHITRA JUNCTION, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD-678 008.

¶10

BY ADVS. DEEPU THANKAN LAKSHMI SREEDHAR UMMUL FIDA RAJANANDINI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M) CORPORATION LTD. BEVO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REP. BY TIS CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR.

¶14

SRI. T. NAVEEN, SC SRI. S. KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC SMT. NITA N.S., SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 19494 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition is filed by abkari workers, who had retired from service of the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd., after rendering years of service. Their grievance is that the amounts deducted from their salary for contributions towards sundry schemes framed under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 till the year 2009 have not been disbursed to them.

¶19

It is contended by the petitioners that after joining the service of the 1st respondent Corporation as abkari workers, the Corporation had been remitting employers’ share of contribution to the Employees’ Provident Fund in the accounts of the petitioners. The remittance as aforesaid continued till the year 2009-2010. In the year 2009, the Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme was introduced in the 1st respondent Corporation by the Government of Kerala. The petitioners also got themselves enrolled as members under the Scheme and they started remitting contributions towards the Welfare Fund under the Scheme and discontinued contributions to the Employees Provident Fund. According to the petitioners, when they retired, the benefits due to them under the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme from the date of joining the Scheme till they retired was disbursed to them. However, they have not yet received the benefits for the amounts which were remitted towards the Employees Provident Fund. It is contended that though the

¶20

WP(C) NO. 19494 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

petitioners had submitted Form 19 under the EPF Scheme 1952 with the 1st respondent, they have not cared to forward the same to the 2nd respondent since there is some pending litigation between the 1st and 2nd respondents. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶23

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the first respondent to forward the application submitted by the petitioners for provident fund amount to the second respondent and further direct the second respondent to disburse the provident fund amount stand in the account of the petitioners at the earliest;

¶24

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the second respondent to disburse the amount due to the petitioners in their account forthwith.

¶25

When the matter came up for admission, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that another set of workers had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.4770/2020 and by Ext.P1 judgment dated 13.3.2020, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to forward Form No.19 along with all relevant documents to the 2nd respondent for disbursal of benefits due to the petitioners and the 2nd respondent was directed to consider their application for disbursal of benefits and credit the amount due to the petitioners in the account furnished by them. It is submitted that the same directions be issued in the instant case as well.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits

¶27

WP(C) NO. 19494 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

that the determination made by the EPF Organization for the period from March 2001 to February 2011 and from March 2011 to February 2015 has been challenged by the 1st respondent before the Appellate Tribunal. According to the 1st respondent, if they are forced to make contributions for the abkari workers to the Provident Fund from 2009 till the date of their superannuation, it would result in unjust enrichment, as during this period the abkari workers were covered under the Welfare Fund Scheme under the Abkari Workers’ Welfare Fund Act.

¶30

In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no contributions towards Employers’ share was paid to the Employees Provident Fund after the enrollment of the petitioners in the Abkari Welfare Fund. In that view of the matter, the petitioners do not claim that they have a right for disbursal of provident fund benefits for the period they were covered under the Welfare Fund Scheme under the Abkari Workers’ Welfare Fund Act. The said submission is recorded.

¶31

I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.30713/19 and W.P.(C) 4770/2020 had occasion to consider the very same issue and had passed orders directing the 1st respondent to forward the Form 19 along with all required documents to the 2nd respondent for disbursing the amounts due to the petitioners. Having gone through the records, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein are entitled to the very same relief.

¶32

WP(C) NO. 19494 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

Resultantly, this Writ Petition will stand allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to forward Form No.19 along with all relevant documents to the 2nd respondent for disbursal of benefits due to the petitioners, within a period of three weeks from 22.9.2021. On receipt of the records from the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent shall consider their application for disbursal of benefits and credit the amount due to the petitioners in the account furnished by them. Necessary action shall be taken by the 2nd respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of records from the 1st respondent.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

¶39

WP(C) NO. 19494 OF 2021 6

¶40

¶41

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶42

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/03/2020 IN WPC NO.4770/2020.

¶43

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Babu M.I. v. Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu M.I. v. Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arunraj R. Vs State of Kerala

St. Thomas High School Vs the State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Kidavu Vs District Educational Officer

Rose Mary Kuruvilla Vs Sri.Mohammed Syed

St.Marys Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Sreehari K., Vs the Department of General Education