Dismissed

Dr. K. Bharathan, v. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022WP(C)/17161/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging EPF dues imposed on a hospital for 213 unenrolled employees. The court upheld findings that these were likely employees, noting the petitioner failed to produce appointment orders proving they were trainees to rebut the Enforcement Officer's report.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed sans merit.

Dr. K. Bharathan, Vs the Central Government… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17161 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR. K. BHARATHAN

¶8

PROPRIETOR, M/S. VIJAYAKUMARA MENON HOSPITAL,
NORTH GATE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 301.

¶9

BY ADVS.
A.K.PREETHA
C.ANIL KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036.

¶12

2 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017 REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER.

¶13

3THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,
KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017.

¶14

BY ADV SHRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANISATION

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 17161 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Order Ext.P1 dated 15.10.2013 of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and 05.11.2021 Ext.P3 of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been assailed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

Petitioner establishment is running a hospital at Thrippunithura and covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 28.02.1985. On the basis of the inspection done by the Enforcement Officer and report dated 18.07.2013, it was found that the employer had not enrolled 213 employees and thus not remitted the payment of various dues under the provisions of aforementioned Act ie., from 04/2011 to 05/2013. An ample opportunity was given to the establishment to submit a reply giving the list of employees on the ground that they were all apprentices and not on the regular roll of the hospital. They were

¶21

WP(C) NO. 17161 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

apprentices and would not fall within the definition of employee as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of 1952 Act. The contribution with respect to the employees who were enrolled in the pay rolls had already been paid. The order Ext.P1 is non-speaking.

¶24

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforementioned prayer by countering the arguments on the ground that no material has been placed on record except the list of the employees and in the absence of any material, Provident Fund Commissioner could not have rejected the report of the Enforcement Officer.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶26

During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner replied upon the judgment in Sivagiri Sree Narayana Medical Mission Hospital v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [2018 (4) KLT 352]. The aforementioned judgment is under challenge before the Division Bench. That judgment is based upon the ground that the stipend paid to the

¶27

WP(C) NO. 17161 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

apprentices on the training would not be an emolument falling within the definition of an employee under Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. I am not in disagreement with the aforementioned finding but the fact in this case is the petitioner had not been able to controvert the findings of the Provident Fund Commissioner and the Tribunal by placing on record any material like appointment orders issued to 216 employees branding them to be the trainees or apprentices. The terms and conditions would have been sacrosanct to determine whether they were actual employees and liable for contribution or otherwise. Even in this Court also no such material has been placed. Finding of the fact and law arrived at by both the authorities thus cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Writ petition sans merit and accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 17161 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17161/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
KR/KC/10275/ENF.III(5)/2013/13923 DATED
15/10/2013.

¶39

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO.
394/2018 WITH ANNEXURES.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/11/2021
PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL
NO. 394/2018.

Dr. K. Bharathan, v. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. K. Bharathan, v. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

Dasharath Kumar, Vs Suresh

Siddique Akbar Vs State of Kerala

The Secretary, Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner - Kottayam

The Federal Bank Officers Association Vs S.D.Singh

Sidhu Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Shri. Ramesh Ramachandran, Vs the State of Kerala