High Court Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs T.C. Khalid on 28 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs T.C. Khalid on 28 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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