Satheesh Babu.V.P Vs. Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126470
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
AppellantSatheesh Babu.V.P
RespondentErnakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd
Excerpt:
in the high court of keralaat ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice antony dominic & the honourable mr. justice anil k.narendran monday, the10h day of february201421st magha, 1935 wa.no. 77 of 2014 () in wp(c).20957/2012 ------------------------------------------ against thejudgment in wp(c) 20957/2012 dated1406-2013 appellant/3rd party : ----------------------------------- satheesh babu.v.p., s/o.madhavan vydiar, "aiswarya"p.o. vallikunnu-673314 malappuram, presently, residing at kolatheri quarters p.o.punnayoorkulam, pin-679561, thrissur district. by advs.smt.v.p.seemandini (sr.) smt.t.b.remani smt.k.p.geetha mani smt.v.bhargavi (panangad) smt.p.a.rinusa smt.annie jacob sri.m.r.anison respondent(s)/petitioner/respondents1to4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ernakulam district co-operative bank ltd represented by its general manager, p.b.no.4, kakkanad p.o, kochi-682030.2. the state of kerala, represented by its secretary to government department of co-operation, government secretariat thiruvananthapuram-695001.3. the regional provident fund commissioner, employees provident fund organization sub regional office, 36/685 a, bhavishyanidhi bhavan, p.b.no.1805, kaloor.p.o., kochi-682017.4. registrar of co-operative societies,thiruvananthapuram.5. the kerala state co-operative employees pension board, represented by its secretary kerala state co-operative employees pension board p.b.no.85, kala nivas, t.c.no.27/156 157 chinmaya lane, kunnumpuram, ayurveda college thiruvananthapuram-695001. r5 by adv. sri.k.r.sunil,sc,co-op.emp.pension board r3 by adv. sri.n.n. sugunapalan, sc, p.f. r3 by adv. smt.t.n.girija, sc,epf organisation r2 & r4 by sr.government pleader s,jamal r1 by smt.i.sheela devi, sc, ernakulam dist.co.op.bank ltd. this writ appeal having been finally heard on1002-2014, along with w.a.no.36/14, the court on the same day delivered the following: antony dominic & anil k.narendran, jj.-------------------------------------------------- writ appeal nos.36 & 77 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------- dated this the10h day of february, 2014 judgment antony dominic,j.the issues raised in these appeals are common and therefore, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. for convenience, we shall deal with writ appeal no.36/2014, first. this appeal is filed by the 4th respondent in w.p. (c)no.17617/2012. the said writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein challenging exhibit p3 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent under section 7a of the employees provident fund and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952. the learned judge by the impugned judgment directed that coercive proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against the 1st respondent shall be kept in abeyance, subject to the result of s.l.p.no.37019/2012. it is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal is filed.3. we heard the counsel for the appellant, concerned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned w.a.nos.36 & 77/14 -2- government pleader appearing for the 4th respondent.4. briefly stated, the facts of the cases are that after the introduction of the state co-operative bank and district co-operative bank employees self financing pension scheme, 2005, orders dated 26.5.2009 and 30.6.2009 were issued by the employees provident fund commissioner and the government of kerala excluding the employees of the state and district co-operative banks from the purview of the epf act in exercise of their power under section 16(1)(b) of the act. these orders were challenged before this court in a batch of writ petitions and insofar as this appeal is concerned, w.p.(c)no.33534/2010 was filed by the appellant along with a staff organisation. by exhibit r4(d) order dated 10.11.2010, this court restrained the bank from transferring the epf accumulation to the pension board. it is also submitted before us that another writ petition was filed by 133 employees of the 1st respondent-bank for the same relief. on account of the interim orders passed in these two cases, the provident fund accumulation was kept in a suspense account of the bank. finally, the batch of writ petitions were disposed of by w.a.nos.36 & 77/14 -3- exhibit p2 judgment rendered on 31.1.2012. by that judgment, the writ petitions were allowed and the two orders mentioned above, issued by the epf organisation and the government of kerala were quashed.5. the pension board filed appeal against these judgments and by exhibit r4(a) judgment rendered on 27.6.2012, the appeals were disposed of confirming the judgment of the learned single judge, however clarifying that those of the employees who opt for coverage by the pension board will be allowed to exercise such option and that in the event of exercising such an option, respective accumulation will be transferred from the epf organisation to the pension board.6. it is the common case of the parties that among the batch of cases dealt with by this court, s.l.p.no.37019/2012 and s.l.p.no.38054/12 were filed by the pension board and the state government respectively against the judgment in w.a.no.1019/2012 concerning the thrissur district co-operative bank. though, these slps are stated to be pending, no interim orders have been passed by the apex court and no slp has been w.a.nos.36 & 77/14 -4- filed against exhibit p2 or exhibit r4(a) judgment concerning the 1st respondent-bank.7. it appears that by exhibit r4(c) letter dated 8.3.2012, the concerned employees of the bank sought transfer of their accumulated contribution which is now kept in the suspense account of the bank to the epf organisation. that was not done by the bank. later, exhibit r4(b) letter was issued by the epf organisation on 22.3.2012 requesting for transfer of the accumulated funds. that request was also not complied with. in such circumstances, proceedings under section 7a of the epf act were initiated by the 2nd respondent and exhibit p3 notice was issued. it was thereupon that the 1st respondent-bank filed w.p. (c)no.17617/2012, which resulted in the impugned judgment.8. thus from the facts narrated by us, it is obvious that as at present exhibit p2 and exhibit r4(a), the judgments in w.p. (c)no.33534/2010 and w.a.no.1217/2012 have attained finality. in the absence of any challenge before the apex court, these judgments required the 1st respondent-bank to transfer the accumulated fund to the epf organisation and it was on account w.a.nos.36 & 77/14 -5- of the bank's failure in doing so that proceedings under section 7a were initiated.9. insofar as the pendency of s.l.p.nos.37019/2012 and 38054/2012 are concerned, as we have already noticed, those were filed against the judgment in w.a.no.1019/2012 concerning the employees of the thrissur district co-operative bank. therefore, the outcome of those slps cannot have any impact insofar as the inter party judgments evidenced by exhibits p2 and r4(a) are concerned. if that be so, the pendency of the aforesaid slps before the apex court cannot justify the failure or delay on the part of the 1st respondent-bank in complying with exhibits p2 and r4(a). if that be so, there was absolutely no justification for the learned judge to order that the proceedings pursuant to exhibit p3 be deferred until the disposal of the slps now pending before the apex court. the appeal is therefore allowed. the judgment in w.p.(c)no.17617/2012 will stand set aside and the writ petition will stand dismissed.10. the facts in w.p.(c)no.20957/2012 against the judgment of which w.a.no.77/14 has been filed is similar, except w.a.nos.36 & 77/14 -6- that in this case proceedings initiated are for realisation of damages as provided under section 14b of the employees provident fund and miscellaneous provisions act. here again, for the same reasons which we have assigned in our judgment in w.a.no.36/2014, there is no justification for deferring the proceedings during the pendency of the slps pending in connection with the judgment in the case of the thrissur district co-operative bank. therefore, here also, the judgment of the learned single judge in w.p.(c)no.20757/2012 will stand set aside. the writ petition is dismissed. the writ appeal is allowed as above. sd/- antony dominic, judge sd/- anil k.narendran, judge dsn
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE10H DAY OF FEBRUARY201421ST MAGHA, 1935 WA.No. 77 of 2014 () IN WP(C).20957/2012 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THEJUDGMENT

IN WP(C) 20957/2012 DATED1406-2013 APPELLANT/3RD PARTY : ----------------------------------- SATHEESH BABU.V.P., S/O.MADHAVAN VYDIAR, "AISWARYA"P.O. VALLIKUNNU-673314 MALAPPURAM, PRESENTLY, RESIDING AT KOLATHERI QUARTERS P.O.PUNNAYOORKULAM, PIN-679561, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) SMT.T.B.REMANI SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD) SMT.P.A.RINUSA SMT.ANNIE JACOB SRI.M.R.ANISON RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS1TO4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, P.B.NO.4, KAKKANAD P.O, KOCHI-682030.

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685 A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1805, KALOOR.P.O., KOCHI-682017.

4. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

5. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD P.B.NO.85, KALA NIVAS, T.C.NO.27/156 157 CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, AYURVEDA COLLEGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL,SC,CO-OP.EMP.PENSION BOARD R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. R3 BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION R2 & R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER S,JAMAL R1 BY SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, SC, ERNAKULAM DIST.CO.OP.BANK LTD. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1002-2014, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.36/14, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

-------------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal Nos.36 & 77 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE10h DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014 JUDGMENT

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

The issues raised in these appeals are common and therefore, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For convenience, we shall deal with Writ Appeal No.36/2014, first. This appeal is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P. (C)No.17617/2012. The said Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein challenging Exhibit P3 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The learned Judge by the impugned judgment directed that coercive proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against the 1st respondent shall be kept in abeyance, subject to the result of S.L.P.No.37019/2012. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal is filed.

3. We heard the counsel for the appellant, concerned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned W.A.Nos.36 & 77/14 -2- Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the cases are that after the introduction of the State Co-operative Bank and District Co-operative Bank Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 2005, orders dated 26.5.2009 and 30.6.2009 were issued by the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner and the Government of Kerala excluding the employees of the State and District Co-operative Banks from the purview of the EPF Act in exercise of their power under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. These orders were challenged before this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions and insofar as this appeal is concerned, W.P.(C)No.33534/2010 was filed by the appellant along with a staff organisation. By Exhibit R4(d) order dated 10.11.2010, this Court restrained the Bank from transferring the EPF accumulation to the Pension Board. It is also submitted before us that another Writ Petition was filed by 133 employees of the 1st respondent-Bank for the same relief. On account of the interim orders passed in these two cases, the Provident Fund accumulation was kept in a suspense account of the Bank. Finally, the batch of Writ Petitions were disposed of by W.A.Nos.36 & 77/14 -3- Exhibit P2 judgment rendered on 31.1.2012. By that judgment, the Writ Petitions were allowed and the two orders mentioned above, issued by the EPF Organisation and the Government of Kerala were quashed.

5. The Pension Board filed appeal against these judgments and by Exhibit R4(a) judgment rendered on 27.6.2012, the appeals were disposed of confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, however clarifying that those of the employees who opt for coverage by the Pension Board will be allowed to exercise such option and that in the event of exercising such an option, respective accumulation will be transferred from the EPF organisation to the Pension Board.

6. It is the common case of the parties that among the batch of cases dealt with by this Court, S.L.P.No.37019/2012 and S.L.P.No.38054/12 were filed by the Pension Board and the State Government respectively against the judgment in W.A.No.1019/2012 concerning the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank. Though, these SLPs are stated to be pending, no interim orders have been passed by the Apex Court and no SLP has been W.A.Nos.36 & 77/14 -4- filed against Exhibit P2 or Exhibit R4(a) judgment concerning the 1st respondent-Bank.

7. It appears that by Exhibit R4(c) letter dated 8.3.2012, the concerned employees of the Bank sought transfer of their accumulated contribution which is now kept in the suspense account of the Bank to the EPF organisation. That was not done by the Bank. Later, Exhibit R4(b) letter was issued by the EPF Organisation on 22.3.2012 requesting for transfer of the accumulated funds. That request was also not complied with. In such circumstances, proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act were initiated by the 2nd respondent and Exhibit P3 notice was issued. It was thereupon that the 1st respondent-Bank filed W.P. (C)No.17617/2012, which resulted in the impugned judgment.

8. Thus from the facts narrated by us, it is obvious that as at present Exhibit P2 and Exhibit R4(a), the judgments in W.P. (C)No.33534/2010 and W.A.No.1217/2012 have attained finality. In the absence of any challenge before the Apex Court, these judgments required the 1st respondent-Bank to transfer the accumulated fund to the EPF organisation and it was on account W.A.Nos.36 & 77/14 -5- of the Bank's failure in doing so that proceedings under Section 7A were initiated.

9. Insofar as the pendency of S.L.P.Nos.37019/2012 and 38054/2012 are concerned, as we have already noticed, those were filed against the judgment in W.A.No.1019/2012 concerning the employees of the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the outcome of those SLPs cannot have any impact insofar as the inter party judgments evidenced by Exhibits P2 and R4(a) are concerned. If that be so, the pendency of the aforesaid SLPs before the Apex Court cannot justify the failure or delay on the part of the 1st respondent-Bank in complying with Exhibits P2 and R4(a). If that be so, there was absolutely no justification for the learned Judge to order that the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 be deferred until the disposal of the SLPs now pending before the Apex Court. The appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment in W.P.(C)No.17617/2012 will stand set aside and the Writ Petition will stand dismissed.

10. The facts in W.P.(C)No.20957/2012 against the judgment of which W.A.No.77/14 has been filed is similar, except W.A.Nos.36 & 77/14 -6- that in this case proceedings initiated are for realisation of damages as provided under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Here again, for the same reasons which we have assigned in our judgment in W.A.No.36/2014, there is no justification for deferring the proceedings during the pendency of the SLPs pending in connection with the judgment in the case of the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank. Therefore, here also, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.20757/2012 will stand set aside. The Writ Petition is dismissed. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE dsn