BY AD vs P.RAMAKRISHNAN

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT KRISDHNA VIHAR, ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM-676 312. INDIRA BAI P. RETIRED BINDER, (PF CODE NO. KR/16122/153), KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND TRAINING (C- APT), HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT AHSA BHAVAN, MOOLAVILA, KALIYOOR, MUTTACAUD P.O.,, PIN-695 523. BY ADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE SRI.S.K.HARISH RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND TRAINING (C-APT), HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 013 THE REGIONAL PROVIDNET FUND COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. BY ADV LATHA ANAND SRI. VENUGOPAL V., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 30554 OF 2019 14 JUDGMENT Petitioners are employees of the 1st respondent. They have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the fact that, presently, contribution towards the Employees Provident Fund Scheme-1952 (the 1952 Scheme) over and above the statutorily prescribed limits of salary has been stopped by the 1st respondent on the ground of financial constraints.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent is liable to contribute on the basis of actual salary, depending on the option exercised by the employees like the petitioners.

3. An identical issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghtana and Others V. Management of Marathwada Gramin Bank and Others [ AIR 2011 (SC) 3567 ] , where it has been categorically held that the employer cannot be compelled to pay higher amount over and above the statutory limits of salary under the 1952- Scheme.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this is a case where contributions over and above WP(C) NO. 30554 OF 2019 15 the statutory limit of salary was being actually paid by the 1 st respondent, which had been stopped only on account of financial constraints. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the 1st respondent may be directed to consider Ext.P1 representation and to take a decision thereunder, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioners.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1, after affording an opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 30554 OF 2019 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30554/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/5/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE TRADE UNION REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPNDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/5/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE TRADE UNION REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPNDENT.