Allowed

Sailesh Mohan Sharma, Director v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Kerala HC9 Nov 2022WP(C)/2856/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected writ petitions challenging orders imposing PF dues liability were allowed. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the revision application and pass fresh orders within three months after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 03.08.2010 and 17.12.2010 quashed; 2nd respondent directed to pass fresh orders within 3 months after hearing.

Sailesh Mohan Sharma, Director Vs Employees… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 2856 OF 2011

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 SAILESH MOHAN SHARMA, DIRECTOR, M/S.RAM BAHADUR TAHKUR LTD, SIDHARTHA IIND MAIN ROAD,, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682003

¶7

2 THOMAS JACOB, DIRECTOR, M/S.POABS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,, P.O.KUTTOOR,THIRUVALLA

¶8

3 K.M.MATHAN, GENERAL MANAGER, PAMBANAR ESTATE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADV SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUZHY BUILDING,, C.M.S.COLLEGE ROAD, PB NO .36,KOTTAYAM-686001

¶11

2 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUZHY BUILDING, C.M.S.COLLEGE ROAD, PB NO .36,KOTTAYAM-686001 BY ADV SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).2860/2011, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).Nos.2856 & 2860 of 2011

¶14

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/ 18TH KARTHIKA,1944
WP(C) NO. 2860 OF 2011

¶18

PETITIONERS:

¶19

1 SAILESH MOHAN SHARMA, DIRECTOR, M/S.RAM BAHADUR TAHKUR LTD,, SIDHARTHA IIND MAIN ROAD, WIILINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682003

¶20

2 THOMAS JACOB DIRECTOR, M/S.POABS ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,, P.O.KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA

¶21

3 K.M.MATHAN, GENERAL MANAGER, THENGAKKAL ESTATE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY SRI.T.SANJAY

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

1 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,CHALAKUZHY BUILDING,, C.M.S.COLLEGE ROAD, P B.NO.36,KOTTAYAM-686001

¶24

2 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,CHALAKUZHY BUILDING,, C.M.S.COLLEGE ROAD, P B.NO.36,KOTTAYAM-686001 BY ADV SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, ALONG WITH
WP(C).2856/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).Nos.2856 & 2860 of 2011

¶27

¶28

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶29

W.P.(C).Nos.2856 & 2860 of 2011

¶30

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 09^th day of November, 2022

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

¶33

I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C). No.2856/2011:

¶34

The 1^st petitioner is the Director of M/s.Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. The said company owned 9 tea estates in Idukki District. According to the petitioners, the said estates had been closed from 2001 to July 2008. In July 2008 the PF Organization sold substantial portion of the estates in public auction for recovery of PF dues. The 2^nd petitioner has taken in auction the estates as per Ext.Pl. An enquiry is conducted by the respondents in respect of the PF dues for the period from 4/08 to 4/09 in respect of M/s.RBT estates. The petitioners have produced documentary as well as oral evidence to the effect that the estates were closed till 29.07.2008 and they are not liable to pay PF dues upto 29.07.2008. The 2^nd respondent

¶35

¶36

WP(C).Nos.2856 & 2860 of 2011

¶37

passed Ext.P5 order stating that the petitioners are liable to pay dues for the period from 4/08 to 6/08 on the basis of Clause-6 of a settlement deed dated 15.03.2010. In the meanwhile, the District Labour Officer who was the conciliation officer of the settlement passed a clarification order stating that the estates were closed till 29.07.2008. The 1^st petitioner filed a review petition under Section 7B of the EPF Act producing Ext.P6 clarification of the District Labour Officer praying to review the order. By Ext.P8 order the 2^nd respondent rejected the application without hearing the petitioners and without considering Ext.P6 and the contentions raised in the review application. It is submitted that Exhibit-P5 order was passed on the reason that as per Clause-6 of the memorandum of settlement (Exhibit-P4) workers have worked in the estate after 01.07.2007. Hence W.P.(C). No.2856/2011 is filed. Similar is the facts in W.P.(C). No.2860/2011 also.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶39

When these writ petitions came up for

¶40

¶41

WP(C).Nos.2856 & 2860 of 2011

¶42

consideration, both sides submitted that a connected writ petition is already disposed by this Court as per judgment dated 10.03.2016 in W.P.(C). No.2686/2011. The same is produced as Ext.P9 in these writ petitions. This Court was pleased to set aside Exts.P5 and P8 orders in that writ petition and directed the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the matter. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P9 judgment:

¶43

“8. Consequently, Ext.P5 will stand quashed to the extend of the period from 4/2008 to 6/2008 and Ext.P8 will stand quashed as such. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider afresh the period from 4/2008 to 6/2008 and pass an order separately under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, after affording an opportunity to adduce evidence and for hearing to the petitioner. This writ petition is allowed accordingly.”

¶44

I think a similar order can be passed in these cases also.

¶45

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:

¶46

Exts.P5 and P8 in W.P.(C). No.2856/2011 are quashed and the 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider and pass fresh

¶47

WP(C).Nos.2856 & 2860 of 2011

¶48

¶49

orders in Ext.P7 review petition in accordance to law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Exts.P5 and P8 in W.P.(C). No.2860/2011 are quashed and the 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider and pass fresh orders in Ext.P7 review petition in accordance to law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶52

¶53

WP(C).Nos.2856 & 2860 of 2011

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2860/2011

¶56

`PETITION` `EXHIBIT`	`ER EXHI` `P1`	`BITS` `TRUE COPY OF` `PURCHASED BY`	`THE` `THE`	`DETAILS OF THE LAND` `2ND PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PUBLISHED IN` `DATED 26.06.2`	`THE` `MALA` `008.`	`PAPER REPORT` `YALA MANORAMA DAILY`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `20.07.2009 IS` `OFFICER, PEER`	`THE` `SUED` `UMED`	`CERTIFICATE DATED` `BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR` `U.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `SETTLEMENT DA`	`THE` `TED`	`MEMORANDUM OF` `15.03.2010.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT DA`	`THE` `TED`	`ORDER OF THE 2ND` `03.08.2010.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE DISTRI` `DATED 15.07.2`	`THE` `CT L` `010.`	`CLARIFICATION ISSUED` `ABOUR OFFICER, IDUKKI`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `FILED BY THE` `2ND RESPONDEN`	`THE` `1ST` `T.`	`REVIEW APPLICATION` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `17.12.2010 OF`	`THE` `THE`	`ORDER DATED` `2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `NO.2686/2011` `HON'BLE HIGH`	`THE` `DATE` `COUR`	`JUDGMENT IN WPC` `D 10/3/2016 THE` `T OF KERALA.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `NO.KR/RO/TVM/` `SECTT/KTM/68/` `13/12/2016 IS` `PROVIDENT FUN` `ORGANISATION,` `THIRUVANANTHA` `PETITIONER.`	`THE` `RCS` `2016` `SUED` `D CO` `REG` `PURA`	`ORDER` `/1798 DATED` `BY THE REGIONAL` `MMISSIONER-1, EPF` `IONAL OFFICE,` `M TO THE 2ND`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `23/6/2014 IN` `CONNECTED CAS` `EMPLOYEES PRO` `TRIBUNAL, NEW`	`THE` `ATA` `ES P` `VIDE` `DEL`	`COMMON ORDER DATED` `NO.399(7) 13 AND` `ASSED BY THE` `NT FUND APPELLATE` `HI`

¶57

WP(C).Nos.2856 & 2860 of 2011

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2856/2011

¶60

`PETITION` `EXHIBIT`	`ER EXHI` `P1`	`BITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `PURCHASED BY THE`	`DETAILS OF THE LAND` `2ND PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PUBLISHED IN MALA` `DATED 26.06.2008.`	`PAPER REPORT` `YALA MANORAMA DAILY`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `20.07.2009 ISSUED` `OFFICER, PEERUMED`	`CERTIFICATE DATED` `BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR` `U.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SETTLEMENT DATED`	`MEMORANDUM OF` `15.03.2010.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`ORDER OF THE 2ND` `03.08.2010.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `BY THE DISTRICT L` `DATED 15.07.2010.`	`CLARIFICATION ISSUED` `ABOUR OFFICER, IDUKKI`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `FILED BY THE 1ST` `2ND RESPONDENT.`	`REVIEW APPLICATION` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `17.12.2010 OF THE`	`ORDER DATED` `2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.2686/2011 DATE` `HON'BLE COURT OF`	`JUDGMENT IN WPC` `D 10/3/2016 THE` `KERALA`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.KR/RO/TVM/RC'S` `SECTT/KTM/68/2016` `13/12/2016 ISSUED` `PROVIDENT FUND CO` `ORGANISATION, REG` `THIRUVANANTHAPURA` `PETITIONER`	`ORDER` `/1798 DATED` `BY THE REGIONAL` `MMISSIONER, 1, EPF` `IONAL OFFICE,` `M TO THE 2ND`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `10.06.2014 IN ATA` `CONNECTED CASES P`	`COMMON ORDER DATED` `NO.399(7)13 AND` `ASSED BY TEH`
		`EMPLOYEES PROVIDE` `TRIBUNAL, NEW DEL`	`NT FUND APPELLATE` `HI`

Sailesh Mohan Sharma, Director v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sailesh Mohan Sharma, Director 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

Hameed K. Vs the Registrar, University of Kerala

Smt.D.Sajini Vs the Registrar,University of Kerala

M.P.Sasidharan Vs Director, Lbs Centre of Science

Dhamodharan Pillai Vs the Assistant Engineer & Another

Mubaraq Granites Vs Sri. V.R Premkumar IAS

Sailesh Mohan Sharma, Directors Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization