G.Lalu vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii - Kerala High Court, 25 June 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 20709 of 2018 (K) PETITIONER: G.LALU S/O.GOPINATHAN, SHEELA BHAVAN, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM 691 504. BY ADVS.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, E.P.F ORGANISATION, PONNAMMA CHEMBERS-1, PARAMESWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM 691 001. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, E.P.F. ORGANISATION, PONNAMMA CHEMBERS-1, PARAMESWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3. ANDERSON INDUSTRIAL INTERNATIONAL, NO.24 GST ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI (NOW RCN IMPEX, NO.24, GST ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI), PIN: 600 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. MVR INDUSTRIES LTD NO.24 GST ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI, PIN: 600 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 & R2 BY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20709 of 2018 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 24/1/2005 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 7/6/2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 HEREIN IN OS NO.206/2012 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.KR/KLM/LC/HC-236/WPC 5799/2010/2017/ DATED 8/1/2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 2/2/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// A.HARIPRASAD, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20709 of 2018 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2018

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation submitted before the 1st respondent. Other reliefs claimed in the writ petition are opposed by the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

Petitioner is a sub-lessee in respect of M/s.MVR Industries Ltd., a cashew factory owned by the 4th respondent. 3rd respondent is the lessee from whom the petitioner has taken the factory on sub-lease. Regarding the fact that the petitioner alone is liable to pay the employees provident fund contribution under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, there is no dispute. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has retained money belonging to him which is said to have been admitted in Ext.P2 written statement filed by the 3rd respondent in O.S.No.206 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kollam, a suit filed by the petitioner.

Learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that they have no objection in considering Ext.P4 representation

WP(C) No.20709 of 2018 2 within a time frame. It is also submitted that other reliefs sought for could not be granted to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I hereby direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing both the parties and in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. cks