Maria .L Vs The Employees Provident Fund Organistation

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.NO.13241 OF 2020

¶6

Maria.L

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
No.3 Rajaji Salai,

¶10

Opposite to Henkala Hotels,
Tambaram, Chennai- 600 045.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondent Authority to accept the
petitioner's Form No.20 under the Employees Provident Funds
Scheme 1952 without insisting on production of a guardian
certificate for minor children from Court of law.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr.Shaikh Mehrunisa

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.Vishnu for
 Mr.K.Ramu (R1)

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking for a
direction to the respondent Authority to accept the petitioner's
Form No.20 under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952,
without insisting on production of a Guardian Certificate for
minor children from the Court of law.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

2. According to the petitioner, she was married to one
Lurthunathan as per the Christian Rites on 05.10.2001 and out of
the wedlock, two children were born to them, who are now aged
about 17 and 15 years respectively. It is further stated that
her husband passed away on 06.01.2019, due to heart attack and
that the petitioner has got a legalheir certificate, showing
names of her children and herself. The petitioner made a request
to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (in short 'EPFO'),
claiming Provident Fund amount, duly annexed with Form-20 along
with other required documents, but the EPFO Authority returned
the same for want of guardianship certificate for her minor
children, from the Court of law, as she belongs to Christian
community. It is further stated that EPFO gave the petitioner
the Death Claim Form 20/10D/51F, along with Check List
No.62589/10095, which listed out the documents to be submitted
by the Claimant and in Serial No.12 (handwritten), one of the
conditions was to submit the Guardianship Certificate from the
Court for minor children for Christian community.

¶18

2.1. It is also stated that the petitioner is illiterate,
struggling to meet out her daily expenses and she has been eking
out her livelihood with the assistance of her sister. She also
submitted that since her daughter has completed 12th Standard,
she has to join the college and her minor son is studying X
Standard. It is her case that due to pandemic, Courts are taking
up only urgent cases and since she is struggling to remit fees
for her children's education, she has come up with the present
Writ Petition, seeking for the above direction to the EPFO
without standing on technicalities to release the amount.

¶19

3. Mr.R.Vishnu, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, by
reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit has
submitted that the deceased husband of the petitioner worked in
M/s.Raj Hardware, Chrompet and he was a Christian by faith. The
Guardianship Certificate is mandatory for settlement of EPF dues
to the minor family members as per the “Manual of Accounting
Procedure, Part II-A of EPF Act, 1952”. It is further contended
that the wages as mentioned by the petitioner is not correct and
that the deceased employee was getting only Rs.4,550/- per month
and his EPF employee share of contribution was Rs.528/- per
month. That apart, the petitioner has not furnished the
Guardianship Certificate as required under the Act and the EPFO
cannot bypass the procedures, as it would set a bad precedent

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

and there is also a possibility of settling the claim to a wrong
person, which will later end up with litigation. Therefore,
EPFO is not inclined to deviate the procedure contemplated under
the Rules and hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected
by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the
Guardianship Certificate, so that EPFO can settle the benefits
due to the deceased to his legalheirs. It is further contended
that there are pensionary benefits and Employees Deposit
Linked Insurance and that the EPFO is willing to part with the
minor share, till the minors attains majority and after
attaining majority the amount would be disbursed to the
surviving minors, who attain majority.

¶22

 4. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on

¶23

record.

¶24

 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the wife
of late Lurthunathan and that there was a contribution by the
employer and employee. Further, the wife of the deceased is
entitled to family, pension apart from getting accumulated P.F.
Amount and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance. Since there is no
reference to the word “GUARDIAN” under the EPFO Act, naturally,
the Court will have to pass orders based on the Personal Law
applicable to the parties. The Laws applicable to Hindus and
Muslims specifically mention, as to who is the natural guardian?
But, under the Christian Law, natural guardian is not defined.
Hence, the parties will have to obtain the order from the
Competent Court to claim amount due to the minor. If this Court
directs the EPFO to disburse the claim amount to the petitioner,
who is the mother / natural guardian of the children, when there
is no specific mention about the natural guardian, in case of
any litigation, at a later point of time, EPFO will have to
answer for the amount, which has been disbursed by it which may
or may not be accepted by the Court at that point of time.
Hence, this Court is of the view that under the Christian law,
as there is no mention about the natural guardian, the
appointment of guardianship rests with the appropriate Court
alone, as, in this case, there is no natural guardian under the
Christian law.

¶25

6. In the present case on hand, it is not in dispute
minor children are entitled to share in P.F. and E.D.L.I and
non production of Guardianship Certificate does not mean that

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

the education of the children should be affected, as the minor
children were indisputable born to the petitioner and the
deceased. Therefore, this Court has to see how the money has
got to be disbursed to the minor children, in the absence of
Guardianship Certificate, as the right to live includes food,
shelter and educational expenses.

¶28

 7. Hence, this Court is of the view that the respondent
EPFO shall directly pay the eligible share amount of the minor
to the school, college or any other educational institution for
the purpose of children's education and if there is a shortfall,
the petitioner will have to pay the amount and this arrangement
shall have to be continued till the minor children attain
majority. It is made clear that unless the petitioner produces
the Guardianship Certificate, no amount shall be disbursed to
the petitioner. It is further made clear that for availing EDLI
and other portion of Pensionary benefits, the production of
Guardianship Certificate by the petitioner from the competent
Court of Law is absolute.

¶29

8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶32

// True Copy //

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

arr

¶35

To:

¶36

The General Manager

¶37

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation
No.3 Rajaji Salai,

¶38

Opposite to Henkala Hotels,
Tambaram, Chennai- 600 045.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.Shaikh Mehrunisa, Advocate, S.R.No.33028

¶40

W.P.No.13241 of 2020

¶41

RLD(CO)

¶42

RLP(15/11/2021)

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Maria .L v. The Employees Provident Fund Organistation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maria .L v. The Employees Provident Fund Organistation

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

The Superintending Engineer Vs S.Anvar Basha

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Asst. Commissioner of

T.Jayaraman Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

M/s.Icon House Hold Products Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Icon House Hold Products Vs the Asst. Commissioner (Comp)

G.Basker Vs Secretary to Government (Labour) - CUm