IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 28454 of 2002(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. TAPIOCA PRODUCTS GLUCOSE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (TUCI) (REG.NO.158/84) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLIPURAM BUILDINGS, CHALAKUDY. 2. PRABHAKARAN, CHIRACKAL THRIVENI, HOSPITAL ROAD, THRISSUR-680 307. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE R.P.F. COMMISSIONER, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY MR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.48454/2002 IN O.P.NO.28454/2002 K CLOSED 10/06/2009 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 7/12/2001 IN O.P.NO.37162/01. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT, DTD. 25/02/2002. P3: COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED TO SRI. P.O.THOMAS, BY THE RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED TO SRI. K.BALAN, BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss 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-: