Kerala High Court
The Employees Provident Fund ... vs A. Chandrakumaran Nair on 21 July, 2025
WA NO.852/2022 1
2025:KER:53846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO.852 OF 2022
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2022 IN WP(C)
NO.7801 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14, BHIKAJICAMA. PALACE,
NEW DELHI-110066.
2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.
3 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
(ACCOUNTS),
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANZIATION,
KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.
BY ADV SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL, SC, EPFO
RESPONDENTS:
1 A.CHANDRAKUMARAN NAIR ,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.APPUKUTTANPILLAI, AIRPORT DIRECTOR COCHIN
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000215, SREERNANGALAM,
WA NO.852/2022 2
2025:KER:53846
FRIENDS LANE, MAVELIPURAM SECTOR 4, KALCKANAD,
ERNALMLAM DISTRICT -682030.
2 A.MUHAMMAD SHABEER,
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.M.ABDUL RAHIM,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - ENGINEERING SERVICE,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000216,
'FIRDOUS', P.J. ANTONY GROUND ROAD,
PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682012.
3 BINI T.I.,
AGED 55 YEARS, D/O. LATE. T P ITTAN, GENERAL
MANAGER (CIVIL), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LTD, PF A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000005,
KAVANAKKUDY (H), IRINGOLE P.O, PERUMBAVOOR.
4 JESSYPAUL,
AGED 57 YEARS, D/O. LATE K.D.JOSEPH,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CIVIL), COCHIN
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000035, KUNDUKULANGARA HOUSE,
UNITY STREET, ATHEKKAD ROAD, BEHIND TRINITY
CONVENT, KOLAZHY P.O, THRISSUR-680010.
5 DINESH KUMAR .C.,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.APPU NAIR, GENERAL MANAGER
OPERATIONS, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902F 000/0000008,
SREENILAYAM, KARUKUTTY P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN: 683576.
6 RAJENDRAN .T.,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPANACHARY, DGM CIVIL,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C
NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000036, THANAL,
EROOR NORTH P.O, THRIPUNITHURA PIN: 682306.
7 JACOB .T. ABRAHAM.,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.T.C.ABRAHAM, DY. GENERAL
MANAGER (RETAIL BUSINESS), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO:
WA NO.852/2022 3
2025:KER:53846
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000305, THATTACKAT, GOLDEN
NAGAR, THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA- 683108.
8 T.R.GOPALAKRISHNA,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.T.RADHAKRISHNA, GENERAL
MANAGER (CIVIL), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LTD, PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000003,
AMRA116, NEAR AIRMEN SELECTION CENTER,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM- 682030.
9 TOMY DEVIS.,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. P.V.DEVASSY, AGM ELECTRICAL,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C
NO:KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000048, PADAYATTI HOUSE,
NEAR POST OFFICE, KANJOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-683575.
10 SATHEESHKUMAR.R. PAI,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O N.V.RAJAGOPAL, DY GENERAL
MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C
NO:KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000040, NINDASTALATH HOUSE
KUZHUPILLY, AYYAMPILLY P O, PIN: 682501.
11 ABDUL ZALAM M.K.,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, DGM
ELECTRICAL, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,
PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000042, MADATHADTTU
LANE, ASSISSI LANE, ALUVA, PIN: 683101.
12 USHA DEVI T.P.,
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.G.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, ASST.
GENERAL MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT A/C
NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000017, PADMALAYAM,
KOKKOTHAMANGALAM P.O, CHERTHALA, PIN: 688523.
13 ABRAHAM JOSEPH,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.O.A. JOSEPH, AGM OPERATIONS,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C NO.
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000101, OLESSERIL HOUSE,
THONIYIL LANE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O.,
ALUVA, PIN-683108.
WA NO.852/2022 4
2025:KER:53846
14 SIVADASAN HARIDASAN,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. K.G.HARIDASAN, SENIOR
MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,
PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000184,
AMBAKATE HOUSE, VELUR.P.O, THRISSUR 680601.
15 MANU .G.,
AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (OPS), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C NO KR/KCH/0013902/000/
0000100, MANGALATH PUTHANVEEDU,
THRIKKANNAMANGAL, KOTTARAKKARA - 691506.
16 LENNY SEBASTIAN.,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. P.J. SEBASTIAN,
GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C NO.
KRKCH00139020000000047, PARACKAL HOUSE 93,
PARACKAL HOUSE, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682020.
17 BINOJ R.,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAJAH C.D, SENIOR MANAGER,
CIAL (9539701519), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LIMITED, PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000010,
AMBILI NIVAS, ANNAMANADA P.O, ANNAMANADA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680741.
18 SREEJITH T K.,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. T.K KUMARAN, SENIOR MANAGER
(SALES), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000307,
THOPPIL HOUSE, VENGOOR, KIDANGOOR P.O,
ANGAMALY- 683572.
19 PAUL A. BIJOY,
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. M P ANTONY, SR. MANAGER
(BOND)COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000304,
MANJALY HOUSE, AYROOR P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN: 683579.
WA NO.852/2022 5
2025:KER:53846
20 GIRISH .T.,
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN .T,
SENIOR MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO: KRKCH0013902/0000000285, 108/POORNA,
TB NAGAR; TB ROAD, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL,
ANGAMALY, PIN-683572.
21 BILU VARGHESE.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE PAUL, SENIOR MANAGER
-CARGO, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF NO. KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000249, ARACKAL,
CHUNDAKKUZHY P.O, ERNAKULAM-683546.
22 SINDHU SANTHOSH,
AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.K.PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR MANAGER
CARGO, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF NO.KR/KCH/0013902/009/0000262, PADMALAYAM,
FLAT NO. 3 D; MONASTRY ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682011.
23 MANOJ .P. JOSEPH.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. P.J. JOSEPH, SENIOR MANAGER
CARGO, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD; PF NO.
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000104, PLANKALA HOUSE,
BAPUJI ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O, PIN-686661.
24 DEEPOO .S.,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. K.N. SAHADEVAN, SENIOR
MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,
PF A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000124, 205,
NATIONAL AVENUE, MANIMALA CROSS ROAD,
EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-682024.
25 SOJAN KOSHY,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. K.K.KOSHY, SR. MANAGER,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/ 0000109, KARIMPUMKALAYIL
HOUSE, MANHATTAN, LAGUNA VILLA, MAROTTICHODU,
MATTOOR, KERALA, PIN-683574.
26 P.J. TONY.
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. THARIYATH JOHN,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ELECTRICAL), COCHIN
WA NO.852/2022 6
2025:KER:53846
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO.
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000043, PATHADAN HOUSE,
EN-125, EAST NAGAR ANGAMALY- PIN-683572.
27 RAJUMON P.C.,
AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. P.K.CHERIAN, AGM ELECTRICAL,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C NO.
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000096, PYNADATH HOUSE,
ONNAM MILE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN- 683542.
28 ABRAHAM ZACHARIAH,
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. M.A. ZACHARIAH,
SM ELECTRICAL, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LIMITED, PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000266,
MADAVILAYIL (H), YMCA ROAD, ATHANI P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683585.
29 SHAJI G.K.,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. G.GOPALAN, SENIOR MANAGER
ELECTRICAL, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,
PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000267,
FLAT NO. 4C, CHERUB SKY VILLAS, METRO GARDEN,
THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., PIN- 683106.
30 PAUL J KOCHERIL,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. K.P. JOSEPH, GENERAL MANAGER
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000006, KOCHERIL HOUSE,
KUMARAPURAM NO. P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN- 683565.
31 PAVITHRAN .V.P.,
AGED: 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE P. NARAYANA PODUVAL,
SENIOR MANGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LIMITED, P A/C NO:
TC.:KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000188, SREELOKAM,
PUTHANTHODU, CHENGAMANAD. P O, ERNAKULAM :683578.
32 DOMINIC FERNANDEZ,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE. JOSEPH FERNANDEZ,
SENIOR MANAGER, CIAL, PF A/C NO:
WA NO.852/2022 7
2025:KER:53846
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000013,: "IMMACULATE"
(MALIEKAL), POPULAR ROAD, VADUTHALA,
COCHIN-682023.
33 JYOTHI N.,
AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. I.V. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,
AGM; .CIAL, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000014, 3E,
SKYLINE GATEWAY APARTMENTS, PATHADIPALAM,
CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM-682033.
34 ANIL KUMAR P.N.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. P.S. NARAYANAN NAIR, SENIOR
MANAGER- CIVIL, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LIMITED, PF A/C NO. KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000106,
PUTHENPURAYIL, ASSAN LANE,
EDAYAPPURAM ROAD, ALUVA- 683101.
35 MATHACHAN P.J.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. P.V.JOSEPH, SENIOR MANAGER
CARGO, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF
A/C NO.KR/ KCH/0013902/000/ 0000250, PADAYATTY,
KANJOOR, (NEAR CHANGAL BRIDGE),
THURAVUMKARA P.O, PIN--683575.
36 SAJITH.D.
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. T.A. DIVAKARAN, SENIOR
MANAGER CARGO, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LIMITED, PF A/C NO. KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000251,
THARANILATH HOUSE, MATTOOR POST, KALADY -683574.
37 JEEVANAND K. JAMES.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE JAMES, SENIOR MANAGER,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/0000000095, GREEN COTTAGE,
SOUTH PARAVUR PO, PIN:682307.
38 SKARIA .D. PARACKA.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.P.S. DAVIS, SR. MANAGER
ELECTRICAL, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,
PF A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000265, PARACKA
HOUSE, KANJOOR P.O, KALADY VIA, PIN-683575.
WA NO.852/2022 8
2025:KER:53846
39 MINI JACOB,
AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. K.J. JACOB, AGM CIVIL, COCHIN
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C NO.
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000099, KACHIRAMATTAM (H),
NETHAJI ROAD, ALUVA PIN:683101.
40 KAMALESH PATEL.,
AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SALIK RAM PATEL, SENIOR
MANAGER COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF
A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000158, FLAT NO:202,
SIVA APARTMENTS, HAPPY VILLA, HAPPY NAGAR,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682037.
41 SANKAR .V.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE. S. VENKITAKRIHNAN,
SENIOR MANAGER, CIAL, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LIMITED, PF A/C NO:KR/ KCH/ 0013902/000/
0000011, SANKARNIVAS, NETTAIKKODATH ROAD
PALARIVATTOM P.O; ERNAKULAM-682025.
42 CECIL AUGUSTINE P.A.,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.P.N. ALOYSIUS, SENIOR
MANAGER(CARGO), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LIMITED, PF A/C_NO:KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000126,
PADAMATTUMMAL HOUSE, PUTHENTHODU, CANAL ROAD,
CHENGAMANAD P.O, PIN:683578.
43 K.P. THANKACHAN.,
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.K.P. PAULOSE, GENERAL MANAGER
(CIVIL), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, PF
A/C NO: KR/KCH/ 0013902/000/0000004, KUTTAPPILLIL
HOUSE, KADAMATTAM P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682311.
44 AJITH KUMAR C.V.,
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.C.V. VIJAYAN, GM(ELECTRICAL),
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO.
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000039, CHIRAMMAL HOUSE,
NETAJI ROAD, ALUVA-683101.
45 BINDU .P. DAS.,
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.SUNNY JOSEPH MATTATHIL,
WA NO.852/2022 9
2025:KER:53846
SENIOR MANAGER, CIAL, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000012, BELLE VISTA,
VETTIKKATTPARAMBU ROAD, (OFF V.P MARAKAR ROAD),
EDAPPALLY P.O, EDAPPALLY TOLL, ERNAKULAM-682024.
46 SANTHOSH .S.,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.M.R.SAHADEVAN,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (IT & COMMUNICATION),
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000108, PREVIOUS EPF NO.
TN/9710/2663, MAPPILASSERYVELIYIL,
KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA, 688582.
47 MANOJ KUMAR .G.,
AGED 47 YEARS, S/O P GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER,
SENIOR MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO: KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000174,
DEVICHAITHANYAM, NEAR KUZHIKKATTU TEMPLE,
NEAR NGO FLATS, THRIKKAKKARA P.O,PIN-682021.
48 INDIRA P.K.,
AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.P.V. KRISHNAN, SR.SUPDT.
(CIVIL), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000225,
VELIYATH (H), VATTAPARAMBU P O,
ANGAMALY, PIN-683579.
49 M. SURESH.,
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.A.BALAKRISHNAN,
SR. SUPDT.(FIRE), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
KR/KCH/10013902/000/0000107, SREYAS,
THURUTHISSERY, KARIYAD, MEKAD P O,
ANGAMALY- 683589.
50 PAULOSE P.I.,
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O K. ITOOP. SR. SUPDT. (FIRE),
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000123, ALUKKA PUTHUSSERY,
THURAVOOR P.O, ANGAMALY-683572.
51 K.M. JAYACHANDRAN.,
WA NO.852/2022 10
2025:KER:53846
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE.K. MUKUNDAN, SR. SUPDT.
(FIRE), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD;
A/C NO KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000159, "VAISHNAVAM",
PALAKKAPARAMBU, HMT COLONY P O.,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683503.
52 GEORGE JOSE,
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE. V.I. GEORGE,
SR. SUPDT (FIRE), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LTD, PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000121,
MANAKKATTUSHERIL, EDAVAKODE, SREEKARIYAM P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN- 695017.
53 B. MURALEEDHARAN.,
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SR.SUPDT.
(FIRE) SG, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF
A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000120, ANJANAM (H),
MEKAD P.O., THURUTHISSERY, ANGMALY; PIN- 683589.
54 MOHANDAS M.G.,
AGED 61 YEARS, GOPALAN NAIR, JR. MANAGER (FIRE),
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000199,
SREEVALSAM, HMT P.O., KALAMASSERY, PIN- 683503.
55 WILSON K ABRAHAM,
AGED 59 YEARS,S/O. LATE ABRAHAM, SR. SUPDT.
(FIRE), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000287,
KUPPAKKATTIL HOUSE, MEMUGHOM, MANEED P.O,
PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 686664.
56 AJAYAKUMAR A.P.,
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, ASSISTANT
MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A.C NO.KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000260,
OMKARAM (H), POICKATTUSSERY,
CHENGAMANADU.P. O., ERNAKULAM -PIN: 683578.
57 ALEX C.T.,
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS C.A, SR. SUPDT. SG,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,PF A/C NO:
WA NO.852/2022 11
2025:KER:53846
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000097, CHOORAKULAM (H),
PARAYIL NAGAR, EAST MEKKAD, MEKKAD P.O,
NEDUMBASSERY, ALUVA-683589.
58 CINI CHACKO M.,
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. M.J. CHACKO,
ASSISTANT MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LTD, PF A/C NO: KR/ KCH/0013902/ 000/0000252,
GRACE VILLA, KALLADAYIL LANE, EACHAMUKKU,
CSEZ.P.O, KAKKANAD; PIN-682037.
59 KARUNA .P.,
AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. P.K.KARUNAKARAN, ASSISTANT
MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO: KR/ KCH / 0013902 / 000/0000259,
AMBADY HOUSE, DESOM-PURAYAR ROAD,
DESOM P. O, ALUVA-683102.
60 RAJU S.K.,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. B.SABU, ASSISTANT MANAGER,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C
NO:KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000338, NEERANJANAM,
CRA: 66, CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA.-683578.
61 KHANNA ANTONY,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.A.L. ANTONY, ASST. MANAGER
(OPERATIONS), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,-
PF A/C NO: KR / KCH/ 0013902/000/0000178,
ARIMBUR HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNU,
THRISSUR EAST P O, PIN-680005.
62 GINCY .M. PAUL.,
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. M V KURIAKOSE, SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT (CIVIL), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000226, MANGALAKADAN HOUSE,
MOONAMPARAMBU, AZHAKAM PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683577.
63 LATHA K.V.,
AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. SHADANANDAN V.S, SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT (CIVIL), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO:
WA NO.852/2022 12
2025:KER:53846
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000229, HARITHAM, KNRA 95,
NORTH PARAVUR P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683513.
64 SREEKALA P P.,
AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. PRAKASAN K V, SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT (CIVIL), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000228, SOPANAM,
MAIKAD P O, KARIYAD,
THIRUVILAMKUNNU, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683589.
65 SAJI P.I.,
AGED 49 YEARS; -S/O P A ITTOOP, SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT (CIVIL) COCHIN INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT LTD, PF A/C NO:
KR/KCH/0013902/000/0000224, PYNADATH (H),
MAIKAVE,, VAPPALASSERY P O,
ANGAMALY (VIA), PIN-683572.
66 JESSY E.V.,
AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. E.C.VAREED, SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT (CIVIL),
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO: KR/XCH/0013902/000/0000227,
KOOTTUNGAL (H), KONGOTHRA,
MAIKKADU P O, ATHANI, PIN-683589.
67 R.VENKITESWARAN.,
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.K.RANGANATHAN (LATE),
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FINANCE & COMPANY SECURITY),
'COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
PF A/C NO. KR/KCI10013902/000/0000002,
P.P.O NO. 00078615, PRANAVAM, (SIVAD COMPOUND)
PALA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686631.
68 THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,
KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 111,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SANJITH, R1 TO R67
WA NO.852/2022 13
2025:KER:53846
SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
SRI.K.S.MUHAMMED SHEFIN
SRI.BENNY P. THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SRI.ABEL TOM BENNY, R68
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.852/2022 14
2025:KER:53846
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging the judgment dated 28.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No.7801 of 2020 of the learned Single Judge. Appellants were respondents 1 to 3 in the W.P.(C). Respondents were petitioners 1 to 67 and the 4 th respondent, respectively in the W.P.(C).
2. Respondents 1 to 67 were employees of the 68 th respondent, Cochin International Airport Authority (CIAL), which is a Public Limited Company. Employees of CIAL are covered by the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The employer's contribution to the provident fund for the period from 1995 to 2003 was paid by CIAL on statutory limits and not on the actual salary of the respondents. Later, CIAL had submitted a series of representations (Ext.P1 series) dated 15.11.2018 to 07.01.2020, WA NO.852/2022 15 2025:KER:53846 inter alia, pointing out its willingness to remit retrospective contribution to the provident fund based on actual salary. CIAL had also vide the said representations requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (appellant No.2) to process the higher pension claims of their retired employees and to grant them a higher pension. Alleging that the appellants are not acting on the specific requests made by their employer, viz., the CIAL, respondents 1 to 67 had filed the Writ Petition inter alia seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 1 to 3 to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to compute and communicate the deficiency on the part of 4th respondent in making provident fund contribution for the period from February, 1995 to June 2003, or such other period, including damages and interest, if any, with respect to petitioners and permit the 4th respondent to remit the deficient amount to the respective provident fund account of the petitioners, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 and 3 or such other appropriate authorities under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1, P1(a), P1(b), P1(c), P1(d), P1(e), P1(f), P1(g) requests preferred by the 4th respondent, within a time WA NO.852/2022 16 2025:KER:53846 frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court ;
(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 and 3 to process the joint option forms forwarded by the 4 th respondent as contemplated under Exhibit P2 judgment within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court ;
(iv) To pass any other and such other orders as this Honourable Court deem fit to pass in the nature and circumstances of the case.
(v) To award the cost of this proceedings to the petitioners."
3. The EPFO filed a detailed counter affidavit in the W.P.(C) inter alia, pointing out that there is no provision for accepting retrospective contribution to the Provident Fund and that the attempt of respondents 1 to 67 to get pension on their actual salary at a very belated point in time is not legally sustainable. Respondents 1 to 67 filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the EPFO. In the W.P.(C), the learned Single Judge had vide an interim order directed CIAL to produce a demand draft (DD) for the requisite sum, which was duly complied with. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge had vide impugned judgment, disposed of the W.P.(C) inter alia directing the appellants to encash the DD deposited by WA NO.852/2022 17 2025:KER:53846 CIAL towards alleged deficiency and arrears and thereafter to issue a letter for details of the alleged arrears by providing record of the employees and other registers maintained in the office, including the EPF numbers assigned to the employees. It was also directed that after scrutiny of the said documents, if any further deficiency is found, the EPFO shall send the demand after undertaking the exercise of computation and shall also take action as provided under Sections 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the Employees Provident Fund Organisation has preferred this Writ Appeal.
5. Heard Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, Advocate, for the appellants, Sri.R.Sanjith, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 67 and Sri.Benny P.Thomas, Senior Advocate, instructed by Abel Tom Benny, Advocate for the 68th respondent CIAL.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as regards his clients are concerned, no amount whatsoever is due from CIAL towards the EPF account of respondents 1 to 67 as had WA NO.852/2022 18 2025:KER:53846 been purportedly put forth. Hence, there was no cause or reason to direct the production of a DD, its encashment or further steps under Sections 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act. The question of making payment towards deficiency would arise only if the EPFO makes a demand for the same after due determination as envisaged under Section 7 A of the EPF Act. There is no enabling provision under the EPF Act to remit retrospective contribution and the learned Single Judge erred in law in directing the appellants to encash the DD which was submitted by CIAL towards the alleged deficiency of contribution for the period, namely 1995 to 2003 of its retired employees. Since no arrears had been ascertained or demanded to be paid by the EPFO, there was no cause or reason to pay any amount through the DD. The fact that the retrospective contribution on actual wages was insisted on by respondents 1 to 67 only for claiming a higher pension was not taken proper note of by the learned Single Judge. As regards a claim by retired employees for a higher pension based on actual salary by accepting retrospective contribution to the provident fund belatedly offered by the employer, WA NO.852/2022 19 2025:KER:53846 the EPFO cannot be compelled to accept contributions on actual salary from the employees simply because there is no provision in law to follow such a course and also because it is not desirable in the best interests of the fund. The employer had contributed to the provident fund on the statutory wage limit, which the employer is entitled/bound to do, and there is no legal compulsion on the employer to remit the contribution on actual salary. Thus, according to the EPFO, there is no deficiency or shortfall in the remittance of the contribution towards the provident fund by the employer. The learned Single Judge erred in approaching the issue as if there was an actual deficiency on the part of the employer in remitting contributions to the provident fund. The learned counsel further submitted that if the retrospective contribution for the period 1995 to 2003 as offered by the CIAL is accepted by the EPFO in the year 2025, a corresponding claim may arise to pay the pension following the actual salary drawn by respondents 1 to 67. This would lead to the creation of a huge financial liability and burden on the EPFO. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme WA NO.852/2022 20 2025:KER:53846 Court in Pawan Hans Limited and others v. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana and others [2020 (13) SCC 506] and it is submitted that the funds of the EPFO are managed on an actuarial basis, and the contributions received from the employer and the employee are duly invested, and the income by way of interest forms a substantial fund through which any payout is made. An employer cannot retrospectively contribute to the pension fund more than the statutory limits after the employees have retired from service and thus seek higher payments to the retired employees from the pension fund. Over and above the same for topping up any deficiency, if any, firstly, there has to be a determination of deficiency under Section 7A of the EPF Act. The learned Single Judge could have at most directed the EPFO to consider the request of CIAL and the employees, and ought not to have directed the production of DD for the purported deficiency and directed encashment of the same. The direction in the judgment to the EPFO to take steps as per Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act is also unsustainable since any such steps could only be sequel to the WA NO.852/2022 21 2025:KER:53846 determination of moneys, if any, due from the employer as envisaged under Section 7A of the EPF Act.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 67 vehemently objected to the contentions in the appeal. He submitted that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference. Elaborate submissions are made by the learned counsel in line with the counter affidavit filed and he adds that since the employer, viz., CIAL, had committed to pay as the employer's contribution an amount equal to the employee's contribution with interest, and had paid such equal contribution in the initial period of employment, there is no cause or reason to decline the same. It is contended that it is due to CIAL's commitment to employee welfare and also acknowledging that there was a mistake in properly understanding the EPF Act, CIAL had undertaken to pay the shortfall in contribution. It is based on the said undertaking and as directed by the Single Judge, that an amount of Rs.78.14 lakhs was deposited by CIAL. Out of the said Rs.78.14 lakhs, the employer's contribution WA NO.852/2022 22 2025:KER:53846 payable is only Rs.13.24 lakhs and the balance of Rs.65 lakhs is the interest on the EPF shortfall for the period from 1995 to 2022. It is thus contended that the claim of the EPFO that they stand to lose since they have to pay interest to the employees is incorrect, since the interest portion payable to the employees has also been factored in and remitted by CIAL. CIAL has acknowledged that there was a shortfall in EPF contribution made initially and has come forward and remitted the shortfall of Rs.13,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.65,00,000/-. In such a scenario, the EPFO cannot be heard to contend that they would not accept and account the same as they would stand to suffer a loss if the same is accepted. That they may have to pay higher pensions in furtherance of the claims put forth and hence cannot accept the funds, is also per se unsustainable. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jose V. Thomas and others v. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7648) to substantiate the contentions put forth.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the CIAL submitted that WA NO.852/2022 23 2025:KER:53846 CIAL had been pursuing the matter with the EPFO, as is evident from Ext.P1 series of representations and that it had revealed its bona fides by producing the DD for the requisite amount towards the deficiency and arrears. Further submissions were also made by the learned Senior Counsel more or less in line with the submissions on behalf of respondents 1 to 67.
9. We have heard the counsel for both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The primary question to be considered is whether, sans the determination of money due from the employer as envisaged under Section 7A of the Act, the learned Single Judge could have directed CIAL to produce a DD towards the purported deficiency and arrears and then proceed to direct the EFPO to encash the same and undertake a computation as envisaged under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act. It is not in dispute that CIAL had limited the contribution to both the provident fund and the pension fund to the statutory limit till 06.06.2003. Even as per the EPFO, there was no deficiency or shortfall in the remittance of the contribution towards the provident fund by CIAL. WA NO.852/2022 24
2025:KER:53846 Further, respondents 1 to 67 have already superannuated and have received the emoluments that follow without demur. It is the specific contention of the EPFO that the EPF scheme stipulates that, if so desired, the employer and the employee could jointly opt for making contributions on the actual salary, which is higher than the ceiling limit of the salary in terms of para 26.6 of the EPF Scheme, 1952. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph 26.6 of the EPF Scheme, 1952, as it stands now. It reads as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph, an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, on the joint request and writing of any employee of a factory or other establishment to which the scheme applies and his employer, enroll such employee as a member or allow him to contribute on more than Rs.15,000/- of his pay per month if he is already a member of the fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the fund provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employees."
Thus, the provision envisages a joint request for contributing more than the stipulated amount, as well as an undertaking in writing from the employer for opting to make contributions on the actual salary, which is higher than the ceiling limit of the salary. As regards WA NO.852/2022 25 2025:KER:53846 respondents 1 to 67, there had been no joint request with CIAL for payment of contributions on higher wages by complying with the procedure as stipulated under para 26.6 of the EPF Scheme, 1952. The respondents never exercised the option to pay, nor actually paid the higher contribution on their actual salary exceeding the wage ceiling. They, who are no longer members of the pension fund, and have already superannuated and as of now are termed by EPFO as not to be 'employees' as envisaged in the Pension Scheme, had all along been aware of the fact that the employer's share of contribution, is restricted to the statutory ceiling and had accepted the EPF and the pension fund benefits as per their entitlement without protest. Neither respondents 1 to 67 nor the CIAL has produced any evidence to prove the contrary.
10. It is in the above context that the contention put forth by the EFPO that the quantum of benefits and the rate of contributions under the pension fund scheme are regulated based on the actuarial valuation becomes relevant. As regards the retrospective contributions that are now being offered, we find merit in the WA NO.852/2022 26 2025:KER:53846 contention of EPFO that it never had any advantage of receiving this contribution, which, if at all chosen to pay, could have been paid years back, complying with the due procedure as explained above. EPFO, would now, under the impugned judgment, be required to bear the burden, in case any payouts are to be made, without having had the benefit of the relevant amounts for actuarial investments earlier. It is exactly for the said reason that the EPF Act does not provide or contemplate any retrospective contribution to the provident fund or the pension fund. The provision for contributing to the provident fund above the statutory limit under Para 26.6 of the EPF scheme 1952 is available to the employees only, and that too with prospective effect when the wages of the employee exceed the stipulated sum. We note that this aspect had not engaged the attention of the learned Single Judge. Ext.P1 series would indeed reveal that the CIAL had been writing to the 2 nd respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, from 2018 onwards and had been persistent up till 2020 with their request to accept retrospective contribution concerning their retired employees. However, the same WA NO.852/2022 27 2025:KER:53846 by itself is not a substitute for the procedure envisaged in para 26.6 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 or its present equivalent. It would also be relevant to note that Ext.P1 series issued by the CIAL refers to W.P. (C) No.1320 of 2015 and the connected cases, regarding which the EPFO had profusely mentioned in its counter affidavit that the matters touching the issue at hand are under active consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contentions put forth based on Ext.P5 series produced as part of Annexure R1 (b), which is the "Specimen consent of Majority of employees for voluntary coverage under the EPF Act, 1952", also does not constitute a compliance with the mandates of para 26.6 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 or its current equivalent. The learned counsel for the respondents had placed reliance on a footnote in Ext.P5 series produced as part of Annexure R1 (b), which mentions that the relevant detail needs to be incorporated in the document only if 'retrospective coverage is desired' and attempts to contradict the contention of the EPFO that retrospective coverage is never envisaged in the EPF Act. The said contention, however, is bound to fail as the footnote in the form WA NO.852/2022 28 2025:KER:53846 cannot be a substitute, nor can it override the Act or the Scheme. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pavan Hans Limited (supra), in a comparable though not similar context, is relevant. It reads as follows:
"Provident Fund is normally managed on actuarial basis; the contributions received from employer and the employee are invested and the income by way of interest forms the substantial fund through which any pay out is made. For all these years the Fund in question was subsisting on contributions made by the other employees and, if at this stage, the benefit in terms of the judgment of the High Court is extended with retrospective effect, it may create imbalance. Those who had never contributed at any stage would now be members of the fund. The fund never had any advantage of their contributions and yet the fund would be required to bear the burden in case any payout is to be made. Even if concerned employees are directed to make good contributions with respect to previous years with equivalent matching contribution from the employer, the fund would still be deprived of the interest income for past several years in respect of such contributions. ( Emphasis supplied) It is trite that the employer cannot contribute retrospectively to the pension fund more than statutory limits just to derive benefits which were not available to the members when the contribution was limited to statutory wages. As regards the reliance placed on the dictum in Jose v. Thomas (supra), we note that in the said case, the prayer was to quash the order of rejection issued by the EPFO, which had WA NO.852/2022 29 2025:KER:53846 been produced as Ext.P3 therein. Thus, in Jose v. Thomas (supra), the employer had moved the EPFO requesting to permit them to deposit the arrears towards the employer's contribution to the EPF account with retrospective effect on the actual salary and the said prayer had been rejected by the EPFO. In the case at hand, however, there is no rejection or even consideration of the request preferred by CIAL. Hence, the dictum in Jose v. Thomas (supra) does not assist the case of respondents 1 to 67.
11. We see merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge could at the most have directed consideration of the representation of CIAL rather than directing production and encashment of the DD. A direction to process the matter further as per Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act without a determination first under Section 7A could not have been made. Unless a determination of the money due from the employer as envisaged in Section 7A of the EPF Act is carried out by the EPFO, the question of accepting the amounts unilaterally arrived at by the employer and produced vide a DD before the court does not WA NO.852/2022 30 2025:KER:53846 arise.
12. We note that the Employees Provident Fund was envisioned with the avowed object of making some provision for the future of the employee after he retires or in case of his early death to provide for his dependents. It is necessary to ensure that the EPF scheme remains financially sustainable. Providing the guaranteed benefits is crucial for both employee security and the long-term viability of the fund. Vested social security rights of the employee vis-à-vis the provident fund has to be harmonised with the health of the fund. Affecting retrospective contributions and seeking payment of pension on the said basis has the propensity to burden the funds and to unsettle its actuarial basis. Determination of the moneys due from the employer under Section 7A and issuance of an order calling upon the employer after quantification is a sine qua non for receiving deficiency or arrears from the employer. In the total absence of any legal norms that permit retrospective coverage, the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the CIAL to produce a DD for the alleged deficiency of contribution for the period 1995 to WA NO.852/2022 31 2025:KER:53846 2003 and in directing the appellants EPFO to encash the said DD and undertake the computation as envisaged under Section 7Q and 14B of the Act.
13. In the light of the above, the judgment dated 28.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No.7801 of 2020 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellants are hereby directed to treat Ext.P1 series or any other representation, if any, that the CIAL may submit and consider the same in accordance with law and as per the mandates of the EPF Act.
This appeal is allowed as above. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl WA NO.852/2022 32 2025:KER:53846 APPENDIX OF WA 852/2022 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(a) True copy of the details of the EPF-
Employer Contribution Remittance made as per order of the Honourable Court in W.P.C 7801/2020.
ANNEXURE R1(b) True copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 67to I.A No. 2/2022 in W.P.C 7801/2020.