WP(C) No. 7451 of 2005 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselfor the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petitioncan be disposed of giving liberty to the first respondent to proceed to recover the amounts for the violation of the condition, if…
Judgment
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.------------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 7451 of 2005-------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 15th day of February, 2012JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 and 2.
The first respondent, the Assistant Provident FundCommissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Kottayam, sanctioned withdrawal of various amounts under Paragraph 68B of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, to several employees of the second respondent company on different dates for the purpose of purchasing dwelling sites/construction of dwelling houses. Thepurchase of dwelling sites or the construction of dwelling houses shall be completed within the period prescribed under Paragraph68B. Exts.P3 and P4 orders were issued by the first respondent directing the second respondent to effect recovery from the wages of various employees for the violation of the condition so prescribed. Challenging Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner has preferred this WritPetition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several years have elapsed since Exts. P3 and P4 were issued. Many of the employees, who had availed of withdrawal of amounts, have been [WP(C) No.7451/05]2retired or left from service. No amounts have been recovered from the employees on the strength of Exts. P3 and P4 as the recovery was stayed by this Court. The stay order passed by this Court is still in force. He further submits that it will beheartburning for the employees if they are proceeded against on the strength of the impugned orders for effecting recovery at this distance of time, especially when the amounts so withdrawn were their own money.
Operative part
In view of the submissions made by the learned counselfor the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petitioncan be disposed of giving liberty to the first respondent to proceed to recover the amounts for the violation of the condition, if any, if the first respondent still insists the enforcement of such condition at this distance of time by issuing fresh notices to the employees. If the first respondent proposes to proceed against the employees for recovery, the employees against whom so proceeded, shall be afforded an opportunity to make their representation before the first respondent before effecting any recovery from them. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH,Krs. JUDGE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.