Dismissed

Padmas Wedding Collections v. the Presiding Officer

Kerala HC1 Sept 2022WP(C)/12044/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging damages under the EPF Act. While noting arguments regarding deliberate non-payment, the Court upheld the reduced damages and permitted payment via four equal monthly installments, keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance pending payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to deposit amount as four equal monthly installments. Recovery proceedings ordered kept in abeyance.

Padmas Wedding Collections Vs the Presiding Officer — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 10 TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12044 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PADMAS WEDDING COLLECTIONS, KACHERITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM 686 661., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, RAJEEV V.P., AGED 61 YEARS, SON OF PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT VATTAM THATTAYIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA, P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686661

¶8

BY ADVS. B.ASHOK SHENOY P.S.GIREESH ARJUN R NAIK

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, 8TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682036

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017

¶12

BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 12044 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed against the order Ext.P3 dated 30.1.2014 levying damages under Section 14B of the Act and Ext.P5 appellate order dated 22.11.2021 confirming the levy of damages.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exts.P3 and P5 orders have been passed quiet contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court in a catena of decisions to the effect that damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 can be imposed only if non-payment or delayed payment of contribution is deliberate and willful or delayed payment of contribution is malicious and deliberate.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find the order of the appellate authority reducing the damages to the extent of 80% to be unfair and unreasonable rather it is justifiable.

¶20

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner requested for payment of the amount in installments. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection.

¶21

WP(C) NO. 12044 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

Accordingly, I permit the petitioner to deposit the amount as 4 (four) equal monthly installments commencing from 30.9.2022. Till such time, the recovery proceedings are ordered to be kept in abeyance. In case of two successive defaults, the respondent shall be at liberty to take the proceedings in accordance with law.

Sd/-

sab

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 12044 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12044/2022

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. KR/KC(24111)ENF(5)/2007/13113 DATED 29.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.08.2013 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KR/KC/24111/DAMAGES CELL/2014/15955 DATED 30.01.2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.02.2014 PASSED BY THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI IN ATA NO.165(7)2014 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.11.2021PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.393 OF 2018 (OLD NO.165(7)/2014) Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2013 IN I.C.NO.4/2013 OF THE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA

Padmas Wedding Collections v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmas Wedding Collections v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Crescent Public High School Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

The Secretary Vs the Secretary

Silby Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

Institute of Human Resources Development-Ihrd Vs Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission - Kserc

Alagappa Textiles Employees Union (Citu) Vs National Textile Corporation Ltd.

Abdul Jaleel Vs the District Collector