IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 28454 of 2002(K)
1. TAPIOCA PRODUCTS GLUCOSE EMPLOYEES
... Petitioner
2. PRABHAKARAN, CHIRACKAL THRIVENI
Vs
1. EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :10/06/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
O.P.No. 28454 of 2002 - K
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The first petitioner is a trade union representing
the workers of M/s.Tapioca Products, Chalakkudy and the
second petitioner is the member of the union and an
employee of the said establishment. The employees of the
above establishment were covered by the Employees’
Provident Fund Scheme. According to the petitioners, serious
errors were committed by the respondents while computing
the pensionary benefits and therefore, they approached this
Court by filing O.P.No.37162 of 2001 which was disposed of
by Ext.P1 judgment by which the respondent was directed to
consider the matter again and to pass fresh orders. Ext.P2 is
the order thus passed.
2. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that no
effective opportunity was given to the petitioners to present
their claims and case though there was a direction in Ext.P1
judgment to hear the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners
have preferred this writ petition with a prayer to quash Ext.P2
and hold that the members of the first petitioner-Union are
OP NO.28454 of 2002
:-2-:
entitled to their pension refixed in accordance with the scheme
formulated under the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is also prayed for issuing
a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reconsider the
issue of pensionary benefits to the members of the first petitioner-
union in accordance with law.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as the Standing Counsel for the respondents. A statement is
seen filed on behalf of the respondents.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition
is to the effect that though as per Ext.P1 judgment, the
respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh and give
opportunity to the petitioners, such opportunity was not given.
According to the petitioners, the union representatives were not
aware of the procedure and the materials to be considered for the
purpose of calculation and they sought permission to engage a
lawyer. But, the officer, who heard the matter in a hasty manner,
disposed of the matter and the representatives were not in a
position to follow the measures adopted by the officer in
calculating the monthly pension.
OP NO.28454 of 2002
:-3-:
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as
directed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, a competent officer has
passed Ext.P2 order after hearing the petitioners and it is also the
case of the counsel that going by Ext.P2, it can be seen as to
how the monthly pension was fixed by the officer.
6. I am not proposed to go into the merits or demerits of
the case as the main grievance of the petitioner is that they were
not given an effective opportunity to present their case. It is true
that the workers or their representatives may not be aware of the
entire details and the mode of calculation for fixing the monthly
pension and therefore, it was only proper for the respondent to
allow the prayer of the petitioners to engage a lawyer during the
hearing of the matter as directed by Ext.P1 judgment. Therefore,
I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the
respondent to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders after
hearing the petitioners and their representatives.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondent to reconsider the matter, by giving an effective
opportunity to the petitioners by permitting them to engage a
lawyer or any representative according to their choice at the time
of hearing and the respondent is further directed to pass fresh
OP NO.28454 of 2002
:-4-:
orders and for enabling the respondent to pass appropriate
orders, Ext.P2 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to produce a
copy of this judgment before the respondent within one month
from today and the respondent is directed to dispose of the
matter within three months thereafter.
V.K.Mohanan,
Judge
MBS/
OP NO.28454 of 2002
:-5-:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
——————————————–
O.P.NO. 28454 OF 2002
——————————————–
J U D G M E N T
DATED: 10-6-2009
OP NO.28454 of 2002
:-6-: