Union Of India v. B.Bhuvanendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/5TH KARTHIKA, 1937 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34280/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-12-2014 APPELLANTS /RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:-:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR & DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION(EPFO) BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.
3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER SUB REGIONAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGAINISATION (EPFO) BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN PIN: 682 017.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 21 & RESPONDENT NO.4:: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. B.BHUVANENDRAN, DRIVER
2. P.J.BURLEIGH, WORKER
3. SABU P THOMAS, WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
4. UMAYAMMA.V.K., WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
5. RATHI.N.
WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
:-2:-
6. SUDHARMA.M., WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
7. GEETHA.P.J., WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
8. KUSUMAKUMAR.K.K, WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
9. HAMSATH BEEVI T.M., WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
10. CHITRA.A, WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
11. A.B.KHAYARUNNISA, WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
12. KUNJAMMA.K.V., WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
13. DEVARAJAN, WORKER, KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC-CO-OPERATIVE PHARMACY LTD
14. JOSE V.THOMAS SENIOR HAND
15. DR.MEERADEVI S SHIFT SUPERVISOR
16. DR.SURESH CHIEF PHARMACY OFFICER, (HOMCO)
17. VASUDEVANACHARY R.
ANALYTICAL CHEMIST
18. SEBASTION P.J., CLEANER
:-3:-
19. M.P.MAYAPRIYADERSINI, CLERK
20. RAJAN M.N., CERK/CASHIER/A/C IN CHARGE
21. KANAKAMMA.T., HEAD CLERK,
22. THE KERALA HOMEOPATHIC CO-OPERATIE PHARMACY LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REG.NO.T-432 PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688 251.
R22 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO R BY ADV.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV
K. SURENDRA MOHAN & SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ.
------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2015.
J U D G M E N T
Surendra Mohan, J.
The appellants challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.12.2014 in W.P.(C) No.34280 of 2014. 2.
Respondents 1 to 21, employees of the 22nd respondent, had filed the Writ Petition seeking inter alia, a direction to the appellants to permit them to enjoy higher pensionary benefits as per the Employees Pension Scheme by computing pension contributions on the basis of their actual pay in excess of the ceiling limit and transferring contributions computed on the said basis to the Pension Fund. Respondents 1 to 21 are the employees of the 22nd respondent. They are covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.
3.
At the time of promulgation of the Pension Scheme, there was a ceiling limit on the maximum pensionable salary, which was 6,500/- per month. Therefore, contributions towards the ₹ Pension fund were payable only on the said amount even in cases where the actual salary drawn by an employee was much higher. The said restriction has subsequently been removed.
4.
In the present case, it is admitted that contributions at the rate of 12% of the salary of the employee together with an equal contribution of the employer, have been remitted to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
However, only contributions computed at the rate of 8.33% of the maximum salary of 6,500/- have been remitted to the Employees Pension Fund. The ₹ balance amount has been retained by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The above action according to the respondents 1 to 21 is not authorised by the Statute. The cut off date of 01.12.2004 stipulated for extending the benefits of removal of the ceiling limit on salary is also attacked as arbitrary. The learned Single Judge has found in favour of respondents 1 to 21 on all the points and has allowed the Writ Petition.
5.
Heard. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition following the dictum of a Division Bench of this Court in another Writ Appeal. We notice that the issue has been conclusively decided by this Court in judgment dated 05.03.2013 in W.A.No.1137 of 2012, judgment dated 16.10.2014 in W.A.No.1442 of 2014 and judgment dated 07.01.2015 in W.A.No.1956 of 2014. A copy of judgment dated 06.08.2015 in W.A.No.1587 of 2015 has also been placed before us. It is also pointed out that the issue is pending consideration of the Apex Court in S.L.P Nos.16867 of 2013 and 7075 of 2014 besides, other connected cases at the instance of the
appellants herein.
In view of the binding precedents of this Court on the point, we find no infirmity in the judgment appealed against. We note that the learned Single Judge has taken care to make his orders and directions subject to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter. Therefore, no further directions are necessary to be issued in the said regard also.
In view of the above, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE Sd/- SHAJI P.CHALY, JUDGE AV /True Copy/ P.A to Judge