Allowed

Palakkad District Co-Operative Hospital and Research Centre Ltd.No.P 878 v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/17536/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an EPF damages assessment. While noting the appellant's misconception regarding the Act's applicability, the court upheld the final order after the appellate authority reduced the damages by 60%. The court directed the petitioner to remit the balance amount in instalments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remit balance damages Rs.10,17,308/- less amount paid in 22 equal monthly instalments.

Palakkad District Co-Operative Hospital and… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17536 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH
CENTRE LTD.NO.P 878, COURT ROAD,
PALAKKAD,KERALA,PIN-678001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶8

BY ADVS.
V.N.HARIDAS
SMT.SIBY.P.JOSE
SRI.K.T.BOSCO

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE, PIN-673006.

¶11

2 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, 38/377,A-2, KATITHALA LANE, KARSHAK ROAD,ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682623.

¶12

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

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 17536 OF 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner, a society, in this writ petition has assailed the order under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The case set up by the petitioner is that they were under the apprehension that employees are not covered under the EPF Act and therefore the contributions were not made. However, that controversy came to be finalized in the judgment dated 20.10.2015 in W.P.(C).No.32734/2015 whereby the amount assessed under Section 7A of 1952 Act was ordered to be paid in twelve instalments.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter did not stop there as the proceedings under Sections 7Q and 14B, which are inevitable in view of the non-contribution within the prescribed period, were initiated; though the interest under Section 7Q has been already settled but the show cause notice was received for assessment under Section 14B. The Assessing Officer assessed the damages under Section 14B to the extent of Rs.16,95,514/-.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 17536 OF 2019

¶20

¶21

The said order was assailed before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, considering the predicament of the petitioner had reduced the amount to 60%. Society was under misconception of applicability of the provisions of the Act much less the fact that it was not running into profit and that fact was required to be looked into for arriving at a just and equitable amount of damages, but not in a stereo-type and mechanical manner.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the aforementioned prayer on the ground that once the applicability of the Act has attained finality, the consequential effect under the provisions of Sections 14B and 7Q is inevitable. It is further contended that no further proof has been placed on record to establish that there was any loss, the mens rea cannot be also a ground in view of the judgment laid down by the Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg v. The Regional Provident Fund Organization [2022 LiveLaw SC 202, Civil Appeal No.2136 of 2012].

¶23

WP(C) NO. 17536 OF 2019

¶24

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶26

appraised the paper book.

¶27

This court while admitting the writ petition directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Since applicability of the provisions have been upheld and accepted, I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in the orders impugned. Petitioner is directed to remit the balance amount of Rs.10,17,308/- less the amount already paid, in 22 equal monthly instalments commencing from 01.12.2022 commensurating to the order of the appellate authority whereby the damages have been quantified at the rate of 60% instead of 100%.

¶28

Writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 17536 OF 2019

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17536/2019

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/9/2009

¶37

EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF APPROVED SCHEME AND
INTIMATION LETTER DTD 7/10/2011 FROM OF
THE OFFICE JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES(GENERAL),PALAKKAD.

¶38

EXHIBIT P3AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2

¶39

EXHIBIT P4AN TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
21.3.2011.

¶40

EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.4.2.2015

¶41

EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DTD.28.10.2015 IN W.P(C)32734 OF 2015.

¶42

EXHIBIT P7A TRUE COPY OF THE 14 B ORDER DATED
19/09/2016

¶43

EXHIBIT P8A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
DATED 13/10/2016 WITHOUT ANNEXURES.

¶44

EXHIBIT P9A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2019
IN APPEAL NO.159 OF 2018 ISSUED BY THE
CENTRAL GOVT.INDUSTIRAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT,ERNAKULAM.

¶45

EXHIBIT P10A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
03.05.2019.

Palakkad District Co-Operative Hospital and Research Centre Ltd.No.P 878 v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palakkad District Co-Operative Hospital and Research Centre Ltd.No.P 878 v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

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

Centre for Water Resources Development and Management Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Saran C.R. Vs Rani Chandrasekharan

Dr. Menons Nursing Home Vs the Central Board of Trustees

Selvaraj M. Vs the Deputy Labour Officer

P.Raju Vs Mini Antony IAS

Krishnalal G. Vs State of Kerala