IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 15287 of 1993(T) --------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK STAFF UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, NO.2, CHAMPION BUILDING, ALWAYE-1. 2. P.A. JOSE, CLERK, I.B.R. DEPARTMENT, FEDERAL BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW ZACHARIAH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL RPOVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B. NO. 1895, COCHIN – 17. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 3. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., P.B. NO. 103, ALUVA – 683 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL). R1 & R2 BY MR.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER A.C.G.S.C, R3 BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 15287/1993-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DTD. 31ST AUGUST, 1991. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/10/1992 GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE TRUST DEED. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/09/1992. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16TH APRIL, 1993. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE SHORTAGE OF P.F COLLECTED. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J ------------------- O.P.15287/1993 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT First petitioner is a Trade Union representing a section of employees working with the Federal Bank and the second petitioner is an employee of the Bank. Challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Central Government under Section 19A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, declaring that the provisions of the said Act ceased to apply to the petitioner, Bank, from the date on which an objection was made by the Bank before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:- (i).To call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P3 order and to quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. (ii).To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to demand and collect the entire arrears O.P.15287/1993 2 due from the third respondent bank in respect of Provident Fund contribution to be paid by the Bank and its employees in accordance with the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. (iii).To declare that the first respondent is duty bound to collect the Provident Fund contribution as per the rates prescribed under the Act and the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, upto 30.8.1992. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. It is pointed out that Ext.P3 is an order passed under Section 19A of the Act, declaring that the Act had ceased to apply with reference to the date on which the objection was filed by the Bank and the contributions, which were actually recovered, were transferred to the Provident Fund Commissioner. Petitioner's grievance is that a Trust was constituted for implementing the retirement benefits of the employees in the Bank only in the year 1991 and therefore, an order in the nature of Ext.P3 should have been given effect O.P.15287/1993 3 to only from the date on which the Trust was constituted. I do not think this is a contention really arises for consideration because it is not a case where the amounts which were collected has not been transferred. Secondly, even if it is assumed that Ext.P3 order should have been given effect to only from the date on which an alternate scheme was actually implemented in the third respondent, Bank, no directions could be issued to the Bank at this stage, to collect the differential amount from the employees, who had served the Bank during the period from 1985 to 1991 or to the Bank to make any further contribution. Any direction if issued by this Court at this stage, would play havoc with the administration of the Trust and would certainly be incapable of compliance. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs