Disposed

T.T.Raman v. Forest Industries (Travancore) Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022WP(C)/6602/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a former worker dismissed from service, challenged the payment of retirement benefits. The High Court observed a delay in action by the Provident Fund Commissioner regarding the petitioner's complaint. The Court directed the Commissioner to decide on the petitioner's request for contributions within two months.

What did the court decide?

Order to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to take a call on the petitioner's request for remittance of contributions and interest within two months.

T.T.Raman Vs Forest Industries (Travancore)… — 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 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 6602 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

T.P.RAMAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O.PARAMESWARAN, THAZHATHU VEETTIL HOUSE, KOZHIPILLY P.O., VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶7

BY ADV ALEXANDER JOSEPH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 FOREST INDUSTRIES (TRAVANCORE) LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, PIN - 683 106.

¶10

2 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶11

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

BY ADVS. M.K.THANKAPPAN SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F.

¶13

SRI V K SUNIL, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.6602/2021

:2:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner had been working as an Operator Grade -I in Forest industries Travancore Ltd., Aluva. In the month of September 2009 petitioner was dismissed from service. The said dismissal was assailed before the Labour Court resulting into payment of retirement benefits with 25% back wages. The aforementioned award was challenged before this Court and as per the common judgment dated 25.1.2019, both the Writ Petitions were disposed of with a direction that the workman would be entitled to all other benefits as directed in the award without any deduction as if he had retired from the service on the date of superannuation. The management was directed to make the payment within a period of one month. The workman was also entitled to interest on the amount due to him i.e., retirement benefits @9% per annum from the date of superannuation by deducting the amount already paid.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the management as per the letter dated 16.3.2019 quantified the monitory benefits by issuing a cheque of

¶20

:3:

¶21

WP(C) No.6602/2021

¶22

Rs.1,62,258/- including the EPF of Rs.7,831/- whereas the petitioner is entitled to pension quantified as on the date of retirement i.e., 30.11.2011. Thus it was obligatory for the management to remit the contribution of both the employer and the employees to the organisation with interest. In this regard a request dated 4.10.2019 was submitted to the Managing Director, Forest Industries, 1^st respondent as well as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.

¶23

The Assistant Provident Commissioner vide Ext.P4 communication dated 10.12.2019 informed the petitioner that the complaint lodged by him is investigated, but no concrete action has been taken.

¶24

Learned counsel for 1^st respondent submits that

¶25

whatever the contribution was due has already been paid to the petitioner. In case the petitioner wants their contribution, is required to remit the amount including the contribution in the prescribed form, so that the Company can take further proceedings.

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the department would not be averse in taking action on the complaint made by the petitioner as it has

¶27

WP(C) No.6602/2021

¶28

:4:

¶29

already been registered with them in view of the acknowledgment Ext.P4 in accordance with law and call both the petitioner and as well as the management – 1^st respondent for vindication of the grievance of the petitioner.

¶30

In view of the statement made, I dispose of the Writ Petition by issuing direction to respondent No.2 to take a call on the request of the petitioner Ext.P3 dated 4.10.2019 as the same is already registered with them as per the communication dated 10.12.2019 Ext.P4. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment in accordance with law.

¶31

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

csl

WP(C) No.6602/2021

:5:

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6602/2021

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶37

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 08/04/2013 IN I D NO.36/2011 OF THE LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 25/01/2019 IN WPC NO.17380/2013 & 30968/2015
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/10/2019 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 10/12/2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 26/01/2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.

¶38

RESPONDENTS' DOCUMENTS:

¶39

ANNEXURE R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(b) : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.FIT/FIN/16/201415/1282 DATED 25.11.2014. ANNEXURE R1(c) : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.FIT/FIN/16/201415/1441 DATED 11.12.2014. ANNEXURE R1(d) : TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.19 DATED 20.4.2014.

¶40

ANNEXURE R1(e) : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KR/KCH/110/REJECTION/ DATED 21.7.2014

T.T.Raman v. Forest Industries (Travancore) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.T.Raman v. Forest Industries (Travancore) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed K.M Vs v,R Premkumar

Pg Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Employees' Welfare Association, Vs Biju Prabhakar, I.A.S.

K. Vidyadharan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Kerala Khadi Village Industries Board Vs Nisha K.K

Kerala State Financial Corporation Ltd.,(Corrected) Vs Smt. Margarat Antony