Kerala High Court
V. Ramachandran Nair vs Employees Provident Fund Commission
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/13TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 24391 of 2013 (Y)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
V. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS,
"SURA" NIVAS, S/O.RAMAN NAIR(LATE), KONCHATH HOUSE,
URAKAM.P.O., THRISSUR-680 562.
BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
SRI.PIOUS MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSION
(MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
REGIONAL OFFICE, MUMBAI-III, PLOT NO.222
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, CHARKOP, KANDIVALI(WEST),
MUMBAI-400 067,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT PF COMMISSIONER.
2. M/S.SKYPAK SERVICES SPECIALIST LIMITED ,
HEAD OFFICE 3, SONA UDYOG, PARSI PANCHAYATH ROAD,
ANDHERI(EAST), MUMBAI-400 069
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 24391 of 2013 (Y)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT.
P3- TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRIBUTION MADE IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER UPTO YEAR 2005-06.
P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.1.2012 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
P5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5.7.2012 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
P6- TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION FOR MONTHLY PENSION.
P7- TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 10.12.2012 RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE INTERNET.
//true copy//
P.A.To Judge
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 24391 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks pension from the 1st respondent for the services rendered in the 2nd respondent Company. In fact the employer has its office in Mumbai and the petitioner was also employed in Mumbai. 1st respondent is also the Regional Office of the Provident Fund Organisation at Mumbai. Though the question of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the matter is doubtful, this Court is not finding it against the petitioner, since the 1st respondent has instructed its Standing Counsel.
2. The respondent Organisation enters appearance and submits that the employer 2nd respondent is a defaulter from 2006 and that a portion of the Provident Fund amount has already been paid to the petitioner. However, with respect to pension, referring to Ext.P5 it is pointed out specifically that the same has to be considered by the employer or the authorised Officer of the establishment and in the instant case, the petitioner has merely attested the signature and thumb WPC.24391/13 2 impression of the Sub Treasury Officer, Cherthala. Form No. 10 submitted before the Organisation is said to be defective.
3. In such circumstances, leaving open the remedies of the petitioner for approaching the employer to get the Form properly signed and sent to the Provident Fund Office, the writ petition is closed.
SD/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge mrcs //true copy// P.A.ToJudge