Disposed

Seetha K v. the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022WP(C)/20436/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions to the 2nd respondent to consider their representation on merits after affording them a hearing. The Court held that action was already initiated, the grievance was redressed, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of. Respondents will consider the petitioners' case as and when required for assistance.

Seetha K Vs the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20436 OF 2022

¶2

PETITIONER/S:

¶3

1 SEETHA K AGED 52 YEARS W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN C, RESIDING AT 6/370, PALLA STREET, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD - 678010.

¶4

2 PADMAJA K AGED 51 YEARS W/O. MANIKANDAN, RESIDING AT H. NO. 49, VAISAKH, VIVEKANANDA COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD - 678013. BY ADVS. T.C.SURESH MENON B.DEEPAK

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

1 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN, NADAKKAVU, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673006.

¶7

2 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, SWARAJ ROUND, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR - 680020. 3 BPL TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYSTEM HOUSE, CHANDRANAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD - 678007.

¶8

BY ADVS. ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA T.V.AJAYAKUMAR M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN RIMJU P.H.

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, THE

¶10

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 20436 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions to the 2^nd respondent to consider on merits Ext.P2 representation and pass order on the same expeditiously after affording to the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶15

In view of the counter filed by the EPF, that an action in accordance with law, has already been initiated. The greivance of the petitioner for the time being stands redressed. The respondents will consider the petitioners' case as and when required for assistance. Writ petition stands disposed of.

SD/-

sab

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 20436 OF 2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 3.6.2022. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 3.6.2022.

¶24

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶25

Exhibit R1A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KR/KKD/14506/ENF 4(2)/2022-23/829 DATED 13.6.2022

Seetha K v. the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seetha K v. the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

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

Normandy Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Cassanova Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Silver Castle Resorts (Pvt.) Ltd.

Rosamma @ Rose Lilly Vs the Commissioner Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board

A.O. Anto Vs Chenthamara P

Philo Vs the Commissioner