Santha vs The Employees Provident Fund … on 21 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34332 of 2010(N)


1. SANTHA,W/O.RAMACHANDRAN ASARI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JAYA P.C, W/O.JAYAPRAKASH,

                        Vs



1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATIO
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND

3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER(RECOVERY)

4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEES PROV

5. THE INSPECTOR, CASHEW WORKERS RELIEF

6. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,

7. SRI.M.K.SREEKUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA

8. SRI.BINU JOHN, PROPRIETOR, JOHNS CASHEW

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KCWR&WFB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :21/12/2010

 O R D E R
                          C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
                   --------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C). NO.34332 OF 2010
                   --------------------------------------------

                Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners are workers of an establishment by name Regency

Cashews belonging to respondents 7 and 8. Their grievance is against the

inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 5 to assess and recover the

contribution payable towards the Employees’ Provident Fund and Cashew

Workers Welfare Fund. According to the petitioners, though the

respondents 7 and 8 are legally bound to effect contribution towards the

Employees’ Provident Fund and also towards the Cashew Workers Relief

Welfare Fund, they are willfully not making contribution towards the

same. According to them, failure on the part of respondents 7 and 8 to

effect contribution in accordance with the statutory provisions calls for

intervention on the part of respondents 1 to 5.

2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for

respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the

fifth respondent. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents

1 to 4 and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the fifth

W.P.(C) NO.34332/2010 2

respondent, upon instructions, submitted that appropriate action in

accordance with the provisions under Employees Provident Fund &

Miscellaneous Provisions Act and also under the Cashew Workers Welfare

Fund Act would be taken in the matter, expeditiously. This is recorded.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

spc

W.P.(C) NO.34332/2010 3

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

JUDGMENT

September, 2010