The Employees Provident Fund v. Joseph Raj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR W.A. No. 4165 of 2019 & C.M.P. No. 25894 of 2019 1.

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation represented by the Chief Provident Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi 110 066.

2.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, The Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Chennai.

..Appellants Vs.

1.

V. Joseph Raj 2.

Viswanathan .S 3.

Seenivasagam S.

4.

N. Gangadharan 5.

Subir Banerjee 6.

C. Boothalingam 7.

K. Gajendran 8.

P. Guruprasad Anand 9.

D. Karkavel Rajan 10.

R. Selvaraj 11.

R. Sivaperuman 12.

G. Ramadoss 13.

D. Paul Kanagaraj 14.

M. Sekar 15.

N. Seshan 16.

A.R.Nagarajan 1/4

17.

Chitra Venkatesh 18.

K.S. Ravichandran 19.

R.N. Jagannathan 20.

V. Kasiviswanathan 21.

S.R. Srinivasan 22.

D. Sridhar Rao 23.

V. Somasundaram 24.

UIHAS V. Dabholkar 25.

A. Jagannadham 26.

A.I. Dhason 27.

P.L. Vasudevan 28.

Rajinder Krishnan Zijoo 29.

Union of India rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi - 110 001.

30.

Ashok Leyland Limited, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032 rep.by its Managing Director ..Respondents Prayer:

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 24.04.2019 passed in W.P. No.3360 of 2019. For appellants ::

Mr. R. Vishnu, Standing Counsel For Respondents ::

No appearance

JUDGMENT

(delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3360 of 2019. Today, when this matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Vishnu, 2/4

learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/EPFO submitted that the issue involved in this writ appeal is covered by the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in P. Chandrasekaran v Union of India & 4 others1, in which, one of us (SVNJ) was a member, which was rendered following the 3 Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in The EPFO and another v Sunil Kumar B. and others, etc.2.

However, according to Mr. Vishnu, paragraph 4 of the order passed by this Court in P. Chandrasekaran, supra, which reads as under, cannot survive any more, in view of the fact that the time granted by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B., supra, had already expired on 11.07.2023: "4.

If the employees could not access the site, they shall take a screenshot and enclose the same with the hard copy to enable the Employees (sic) Provident Fund Organisation to process their option forms." The submission made by Mr. Vishnu in paragraph 3, supra, is recorded and in view of the submission made by him in paragraph 2, supra, this writ appeal also is disposed of on the same terms in which P. Chandrasekaran, supra, was disposed of. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed. (S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 25.09.2023 nv W.P. Nos.20160 of 2019 etc. batch decided on 27.06.2023 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912 3/4

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and K. RAJASEKAR, J.

nv To 1.

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation represented by the Chief Provident Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi 110 066.

2.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, The Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Chennai.

3.

Union of India rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi - 110 001.

25.09.2023 4/4