Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S.Lakeshore Hospital & Research ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 7 February, 2012

Author: V.Chitambaresh

Bench: V.Chitambaresh

       

  

  

 
 
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

         WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/24TH MAGHA 1934

                             WP(C).No. 31039 of 2012 (D)
                               ---------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------

         M/S.LAKESHORE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD
         MARADU, NETTOOR P.O
         KOCHI 40
         REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY MR. R MURALEEDHANRAN

         BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
                      SRI.P.GOPINATH
                      SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
                      SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------

         REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI
         EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIOZATION
        SUB REGIONAL OFFICE
         BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR
         KOCHI 682017

         R1 BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
         R BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN,SC,EPF ORGANISATION

         THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
   13-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                  APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.31039 OF 2012


PETITIONER'S EXTS:


EXT.P1      TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07-02-2012 ISSUED BY THE
            RESPONDENT FIXING THE HEARING ON 23-02-2012

EXT.P2      TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE LETTERS ISSUED TO A TRAINEE FOR
            UNDERGOING TRAINING DATED 12-04-2010

EXT.P3      TRUE COPY OF THE RODER DATE D03-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE
            RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4      TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY BHARAT SEVAK SAMAJ
            DATED 04-06-2010 FOR CONDUCTING VARIOUS COURSES LIKE
            DIPLOMA IN ENDOSCOPY TECHNOLOGY P G DIPLOMA IN DIALYSIS
            TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMA IN CSSD TECHNOCIAN PHARMACY ASSISTANT
            DIPLOMA IN OPERATION THEATRE TECHNICIAN COURSES

EXT.P5      TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE
            STIPEND PAID TO THE TRAINEES DURING THE PERIOD 4/2010 TO
            12/2011




                                    //TRUE COPY//


                                                P.S. TO JUDGE.



                     V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
                      -------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No. 31039 of 2012
                      -------------------------------
         Dated this the 13th day of February, 2013


                        J U D G M E N T

A composite order passed by the respondent in terms of Para 26 B of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is under challenge. The petitioner which is a Hospital and Research Centre contends that the respondent has erroneously construed 'trainees' as employees entitled to continue as members of the Scheme. The various documentary evidence produced to show that the trainees do not fall within the inclusive definition of employee have not been adverted to by the respondent. There is also a contention that the respondent has erroneously reckoned the stipend paid to such trainees as salary to employees for the purpose of determination of the contribution. There is yet another contention that the tabulation and calculation of the total amount due from the petitioner to the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation is faulty, even if payable. W.P.(C) No.31039 of 2012 2

2. I feel that all these disputed questions of fact can be better adjudicated in an appeal under Section 7 I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. A reference to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1721/2007 is apposite to the context. I have no doubt that the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal will advert to all the contentions of the petitioner in detail after adverting to the documents produced in the enquiry. Needless to say that the grounds available in the enquiry under Para 26 B of the Scheme can also be incorporated in the appeal under Section 7 I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the composite order (Ext.P3). The petitioner is also at liberty to seek for waiver of pre-deposit in terms of Section 7 O of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case.

3. All coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 order impugned in the writ petition shall be put on hold for a period of W.P.(C) No.31039 of 2012 3 two months to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

nj.