IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2109 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.C. KHALID,
... Respondent
2. SHRI E.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN,
3. STEEL INDUSTRIES KERALA LTD.,
4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
5. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
6. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
7. THE SUB REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.A.NO.2109 OF 2008 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
The 1st respondent was the Managing Director of Steel
Industrials Kerala Limited, a company fully owned by the
State of Kerala. In that company, the 2nd respondent was
appointed as the Managing Director after the expiry of the
term of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed a writ
petition stating that unless his term is extended, it will be
very difficult for him as criminal prosecutions are pending
against him. Therefore, the main prayer in the writ petition is
to quash the appointment of the 2nd respondent and allow the
1st respondent to continue for two more years. It has come
out in evidence that large number of criminal prosecutions are
pending against the 1st respondent as the company failed to
pay dues under the Employees Provident Fund Act as well as
the Employees State Insurance Act. The learned Single Judge
held that the 1st respondent was not personally liable for the
dues and the dues are to be paid by the 3rd respondent
WA.2109/2008 2
company. Amounts due is to be realised from the company
because company was in default and not the 1st respondent
personally and did not grant any extension of service to the
1st respondent due to pendency of the proceedings. The
Ext.P6 order was not set aside. But in the interest of justice,
the learned Single Judge also directed the appellant, State of
Kerala, which owns 100% share in the company to convene a
conference after informing the E.S.I. Authorities and
Provident Fund authorities as well as the company officials to
ascertain the actual dues so that if the 3rd respondent
company pays the amount, the complaints can be withdrawn.
We are of the opinion that no interference is required at the
instance of the State, and hence, this appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
prp
J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()
———————————————————
J U D G M E N T
———————————————————
14th October, 2008