IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).NO. 27192 OF 2010(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.S. JAYAPRAKASH KUMAR, S/O. P.K. SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PADIPPURA VEEDU, THIRUTHIYAD PUTHIYARA POST, CALICUT – 673 004. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.HARISH, SMT.RESMI NANDANAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.O. ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT-673 006. 2. THE COMMON WEALTH TRUST (INDIA) LTD. 7/1136, SOUTH MANANCHIRA ROAD, P.B.NO.5, CALICUT-673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27192 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner contends that he has been denied employment by the second respondent. The second respondent contends that the petitioner has abandoned the employment. In regard to the said issue a dispute has been raised and it is now pending as I.D No.6/10 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. In the meanwhile, the petitioner whose date of superannuation was 30.9.2010, filed an application under Paragraph 68 NN of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, (for short 'the Scheme'), for withdrawing 90% of the amount standing at his credit. The said application was to be countersigned by the employer. However, on account of the pendency of I.D 6/10, the second respondent refused to countersign the application. Later, taking into account the refusal on the part of the second respondent to countersign the application Ext.P11 has been issued by the first respondent. As per Ext.P11, the petitioner was directed to file an application under Paragraph 68H(1A) of the Scheme in WPC.27192/2010 : 2 : case he is disirous to withdraw the amount standing at his credit. It is challenging the same that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in case, he submits an application for advance under Paragraph 68H(1A) it would prejudice his prospects in I.D 6/10. It is his apprehension that submission of such an application and consequential receipt of the same might be used by the 2nd respondent to refute his contention relating denial of employment. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submits that the first respondent may be directed to entertain Ext.P6 application and release the advance without insisting the counter signature on Ext.P6 application. Going by the relevant provisions relating the issue such a prayer cannot be granted. Going by the Scheme the petitioner was to send the application through the employer or duly attested by him. If, submission of an application with signature of the employer is not possible, then on receipt of such application, the commissioner or any other competent authority on his behalf has to forward such application to the employer requiring the employer to return it with signature, within 5 days of its receipt. In short, in view of the above position this Court will WPC.27192/2010 : 3 : not be justified in directing the first respondent to entertain the application without insisting the counter signature on Ext.P6 application. At the same time, whatever, be the outcome of I.D 6/10 pending before the Labour Court, Kozhikode nobody can dispute the fact that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount outstanding in PF Account KR/KK/1058/138. Therefore, the question is whether without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner as also the second respondent the petitioner could be permitted to avail advance. As noticed earlier, irrespective of the outcome of I.D 6/10 the petitioner is entitled to get the amount outstanding in the said account No.KR/KK/1058/138. Taking into account all the said circumstances and the pendency of I.D 6/10 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder: Without prejudice to the contentions of the second respondent with respect to the status of the petitioner in I.D 6/10 the second respondent shall counter sign Ext.P6 application to enable the petitioner to avail advance from PF Account KR/KK/1058/138 by making an application under Paragraph 68 NN of PF Scheme. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not raise any contention based on such WPC.27192/2010 : 4 : counter signature by the second respondent and withdrawal of the advance based on Ext.P6 application, to substantiate his claim in I.D 6/10. In other words, the merits of the contentions of the petitioner and the second respondent have to be decided in I.D No.6/10 without taking into account the factum of the withdrawal of the advance in the light of this judgment. Taking note of the fact the application submitted by the petitioner under Paragraph 68 NN is with the first respondent, there will be a direction to the first respondent to forward Ext.P6 application for counter signature of the second respondent, in accordance with the provisions, within two week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say on receipt of the application after counter signature, the first respondent shall take appropriate action thereon, in accordance with law. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge