Gopinathan Pillai M. and Others v Union of India and Others

**`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 1 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1946 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 1932 OF 2025 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1GOPINATHAN PILLAI.M., AGED 62 YEARS RAHUL LAND, THATTATHUMALA, ADAYAMON P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/91039, PIN - 695614 2GOPALAKRISHNAN.N., AGED 64 YEARS THADATHARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KOLIYAKODU, NEYYARDAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/91040., PIN - 695572 3SWAYAMPRAKASH.S, AGED 61 YEARS CHAITHRAM, ATTINGAL, MANAMBOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/91511., PIN - 695611 4REGHU KUMAR.S, AGED 62 YEARS T.C.27/1822-1, NANDANAM, SREE CHITHIRA LANE, SREE CHITHRA LIBRARY, VANICHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/99806., PIN - 695035 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN C.P.SABARI AMRUTHA SURESH GILROY ROZARIO ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 2 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** - **`1 UNION OF INDIA,(UOI), REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001`** - **`2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER., EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO), BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004`** - **`3 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1, (PENSION), EPFO HEAD OFFICE, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BHAVISHYA NITHI BHAVAN, 14- BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066`** - **`4 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.`** - **`NO.T 177 D APCOS, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004`** ``` BY ADVS. NITA.N.S.,SC EPFO LATHA ANAND,SC SRI.T.C.KRISHNA,DSGI (I/C) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).40261/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 3 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, ``` ## **`1946`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 40261 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1GOPINATHAN PILLAI.M, AGED 62 YEARS RAHUL LAND, THATTATHUMALA,ADAYAMON P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/91039, PIN - 695614 2GOPALAKRISHNAN.N, AGED 64 YEARS THADATHARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KOLIYAKODU, NEYYARDAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/91040, PIN - 695572 3SWAYAMPRAKASH.S, AGED 61 YEARS CHAITHRAM, ATTINGAL, MANAMBOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/91511, PIN - 695611 4REGHU KUMAR.S, AGED 62 YEARS T.C.27/1822-1, NANDANAM, SREE CHITHIRA LANE, SREE CHITHRA LIBRARY, VANICHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.P.O.NO.KR/TVM/99806, PIN - 695035 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.N.MOHANAN C.P.SABARI AMRUTHA SURESH GILROY ROZARIO ``` **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 4 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT,NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001`** - **`2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO), BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004`** ``` 3REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1 (PENSION), EPFO HEAD OFFICE, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BHAVISHYA NITHI BHAVAN, 14- BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066 ``` ``` 4THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD , NO.T 177 D APCOS, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 ``` - **`*5 KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, MILMA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR`** `(` **`IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1.2025 DATED 24.02.2025)`** ``` BY ADVS. NITA.N.S.,SC EPFO LATHA ANAND,SC SRI.T.C.KRISHNA,DSGI (I/C) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).1932/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 5 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** Since the parties are the same and common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the exhibits and the status of the parties referred to in this judgment will be as obtaining in W.P.(C) No.40261 of 2024. 2. The petitioners retired from the service of the 4[th] respondent, a Central Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, on various dates after 01.09.2014. W.P.(C) No.40261 of 2024 is filed for the following reliefs: “i] Call for the records leading to issue Ext. P15 and similar orders issued to other petitioners and **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 6 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` quash the same by issuing a writ of certioriari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. ii] declare that all the petitioners are entitled to get higher pension in the light of para 44(ix) of Ext.P9 Judgment with the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the light of the Judgment in Sunil Kumar case. iii] declare that since collecting the contribution for the period April, 2004 to October 2006 amounting to Rs.40,03,150/- with interest of Rs.1,64,137/- on 16.11.2006 and October 2007 to February 2008 amounting to Rs.13,00,684/- with interest of Rs.11,879/on 26.03.2008, the EPFO cannot turn round and deny pension under para 44(iv) & (v) of the Sunil Kumar Judgment stating that petitioners not exercised option while in service, which has no application on **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 7 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` the facts of the case. iv] Declare that petitioners are entitled to get 12% interest in terms of para 17A of the Pension Scheme, 1995.” 3. According to the petitioners, while in service, they made contributions to the provident fund on the basis of the actual salary drawn by them. The 4[th] respondent employer also contributed on the basis of actual salary. When the Employees' Provident Fund Pension Scheme, 1995 was introduced with effect from 16.11.1995, all of them enrolled in the Pension Scheme. However, they were permitted to contribute to the Pension Scheme limiting their salary as Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- on the ground **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 8 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` that an artificial cut off date was made by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation with effect from 01.12.2004. The petitioners challenged the cut off date by filing W.P.(C) Nos.30882 of 2014 and 2341 of 2017 along with others and this Court, by Ext. P1 judgment dated 20.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No.30882 of 2014, permitted the petitioners to contribute to the pension fund on the basis of actual salary. The contribution to the EPF scheme was 12% of their actual wages as employees contribution and equal amount of 12% by the 4[th] respondent. Based on audit report objecting to the payment of EPF contribution without considering the statutory limit, the Government issued direction to the 4[th] respondent to limit the employer share **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 9 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` of EPF contribution to the statutory wage ceiling. The same was challenged by the employees and their association in O.P. No.19664 of 1998 wherein this Court, by an interim order permitted the employer to pay contribution on actual wages to the EPFO without considering the statutory limit. However, the said original petition was dismissed by judgment dated 02.09.2003 and the 4[th] respondent decided to limit the employer share of EPF contribution to the statutory wage ceiling. Against the said judgment, a writ appeal was filed as W.A. No.1591 of 2003 wherein the Division Bench of this Court passed Ext.P10 interim order on 09.03.2004 permitting the employer to deposit the amount in excess of the statutory limit in a **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 10 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` separate account in a Nationalised Bank and in case the employees succeed in the appeal, the amount shall be deposited in their provident fund accounts along with 9% interest thereon. In the light of the said order, the Board of Directors of the 4[th] respondent resolved to deposit the amount in excess of the statutory limit in separate bank account till a decision is taken in the writ appeal and accordingly, separate bank accounts were opened by the 4[th] respondent wherein the employer contributions in excess of the statutory limit were deposited for the period from April 2004 to October 2006. The writ appeal was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 23.05.2006. However, the Division Bench observed that where an employer on his volition **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 11 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` pay more than what is statutorily required, he shall have the choice to do so. Based on this observation, and with the permission of the Government, the 4[th] respondent decided to resume remittance of employer contribution based on the actual wages and to transfer the amount deposited in the bank along with interest for the period from April 2004 to September 2006. The remittance, as above, continued till the month of August 2007 and was stopped awaiting orders from the Government. On obtaining sanction from the Government, it was decided to continue the system of remittance of EPF contribution without ceiling from September 2007 to January 2008. Thus the amounts which were deposited in separate bank accounts were **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 12 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** transferred to the EPFO. 4. Pursuant to the judgment in _**Employees**_ v. _**Provident Fund Organisation and Another Sunil Kumar B. and Others**_ [2022 (7) KHC 12], the petitioners who were continuing in service since 01.09.2014 were permitted to exercise option for higher pension and they exercised their options under paragraph 11(3) and 11(4) of the Scheme. 5. The petitioners retired from service during 2020-2022. However, they were denied higher pension stating the reason that from April 2004 to October 2006, and October 2007 to February 2008, the employer paid contribution on statutory limit. The petitioners state that Exts. P12 and P13 communications issued by the 4[th] **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 13 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` respondent to the 2[nd] respondent would show that the 4[th] respondent had paid the contribution above the ceiling limit for the period from April 2004 to October 2006. By Ext. P15, the joint option of the 1[st] petitioner was rejected on the ground that the employee and the employer had not contributed on actual under wages paragraph 26(6) of EPF Scheme, 1952 for various months for the period 2004-2008 on salary exceeding the prevalent wage ceiling of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- or Rs.15,000/-. Similar orders were issued to the other petitioners also. Challenging Ext. P15 and other similar orders, W.P.(C) No.40261 of 2024 is filed. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.40261 of 2024, **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 14 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` it is stated that the employer paid contributions in bulk only for the months 11/2006 and 03/2008 instead of making monthly payments and hence the payments do not properly match to each due month. Because of this, the petitioners’ claims under the EPS Rules were rejected, and the splitup returns submitted later cannot be accepted. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.40261 of 2024, it is stated that pursuant to the sanction obtained from the Government, and in obedience to the Board decision, and on the basis of the observation in W.A. No.1591 of 2003, the 4[th] respondent had remitted the employer contribution based on the actual wages for the period April 2004 to September 2006 and from **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 15 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` September 2007 to January 2008. It is stated that as directed by this Court in Ext. P10 order, the contribution was deposited in separate Bank account and later, transferred to the EPFO in two spells and the amounts were accepted by the EPFO. It is further stated that the 4[th] respondent has furnished proof of remittance of employer and employee contribution under Paragraph 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 for the period from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 in respect of the petitioners and other employees. It is asserted that the defect pointed out by the EPFO in Ext. P15 and similar letters is not correct and the 4[th] respondent as well as the employees had contributed on actual wages for the aforesaid period. Though there was a late payment due to **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 16 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` want of Government sanction, the 4[th] respondent had remitted the contribution above the statutory limit and on actual wages. The 4[th] respondent has also produced Ext. R4(c), a statement showing the monthwise break up of lump sum remittance for the period from April 2004 to October 2006 and from September 2007 to January 2008 in respect of the petitioners. 8. When W.P.(C) No.40261 of 2024 came up for consideration on 12.12.2024, this Court observed that Ext. P15 order has been passed by the 2[nd] respondent without adverting to or without referring to Ext. P12 communication issued by the employer or their own records and the 2[nd] respondent was directed to revisit Ext. P15 order in the light of Ext. P12 within a period **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 17 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` of three weeks. It was also ordered that, if any clarification is required from the employer, the same shall be obtained within the aforesaid time. 9. Pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2024, the 2[nd] respondent passed Ext. P18 order in W.P(C) No.1932 of 2025 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for higher pension on the basis of actual salary. In Ext. P18, it is stated that the remittance for the wage months from 2004 to 2008 was made by the employer in bulk against the wage months 11/2006 and 03/2008, not in respective months and such bulk amounts were credited to the employees account only for the months 11/2006 and 03/2008 as arrears. Accordingly, it is stated that, since the apportionment of the payment against the **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 18 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` respective due months was not done, the contribution on actual salary as per paragraph 26(6) was not remitted in respective months and the petitioners are not eligible for higher pension. Challenging Ext. P18, W.P.(C) No.1932 of 2025 is filed. 10. According to the petitioners, contributions under the EPF Scheme, 1952, at the rate of 12%, were regularly made by the petitioners, with an equal contribution by the employer, based on the actual salary drawn, until retirement, except for a brief period from April 2004 to October 2006, and from October 2007 to February 2008. Later, contributions for these periods were made along with interest. It is therefore contended that, having accepted these **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 19 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` contributions, the 2[nd] respondent cannot deny the petitioners the benefit of higher pension as per paragraph 24 of the judgment in _**Sunil Kumar B**_ (supra). The petitioners also relied on the decision of this Court in **Mohanan K.S.** _**v**_ **. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner** [2024 KHC 7281: 2025 (1) KLT 28] and contended that higher pension cannot be denied on ground that remittance of contribution was made by the employer in lump sum. 11. Heard Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Nita N.S., the learned standing counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Smt. Latha Anand, the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent. **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 20 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` 12. The joint options of the petitioners were rejected by the 2[nd] respondent on the ground that the employee and employer did not contribute on actual wages during various months for the period from 2004–2006 to 2007–2008. However, the 2[nd] respondent does not dispute that the payment for this period was received in two bulk payments. The only contention raised is that the amount received was not appropriated to the respective months, and therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for higher pension. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent, it is stated that, as instructed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram, the 4[th] respondent furnished proof of remittance of both **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 21 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** employee and employer contributions under Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, for the period 2004–2005 to 2007–2008 in respect of the petitioners, vide letters No. TD/PER/ 47/2024/ 1588 dated 04.08.2024 and TD/PER/ 47/2024/ 1695 dated 19.08.2024. The statement showing the month-wise break-up of the lump-sum remittance for the said period is produced as Ext. R4(c). It is stated that administrative charges were also paid as provided under Para 26(6). Admittedly, the Employees Provident Fund Organisation has received contributions from both employees and employer under Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, for the period 2004– 2005 to 2007–2008. Paragraph 26 (6) deals with instances where employees and employers opt to **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 22 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` contribute to the Employees' Provident Fund on the limit. The wages exceeding statutory petitioners and the 4[th] respondent having complied with the requirements under the said paragraph, and the Employees Provident Fund Organisation accepted the contributions, the 2[nd] respondent cannot deny the petitioners the benefit of higher pension. Accordingly, Ext.P15 in both writ petitions and Ext.P18 order in W.P (C) No. 1932 of 2025 and similar orders issued to other petitioners are set aside. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to get higher pension on actual wages. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to take consequential steps to disburse higher pension to the petitioners based on the split-up data submitted by the 4[th] **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 23 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of respondents 2 and 3 initiating any proceedings against the employer in terms of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or the Scheme. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 24 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1932/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - **`Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014 IN W.P.(C). NO.30882/2014`** - **`Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION HAVING NO.GSR 609 (E) DATED 22.08.2014`** - **`Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2018 OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN SASIKUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN ILR 2019 (1) KER 614`** - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2016 IN R.C.GUPTA VS. REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER AS REPORTED IN 2018 (14) SCC 809`** - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 22.11.2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PF COMMISSIONER`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PF COMMISSIONER`** - **`Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.11.2022 IN EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION AND ANOTHER V. SUNIL KUMAR B AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2022 (7) KHC 12 (SC)`** - **`Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 09.03.2004 IN W.A.NO.1591/ 2003`** - **`Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.08.2016 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT`** **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 25 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** - **`Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.12.2006 ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE CHALAN FOR RS.40,03,150/- DATED 16.11.2006`** - **`Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.03.2008 OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE CHALAN FOR RS.13,12,563/- DATED 26.03.2008`** - **`Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION DATED 20.04.2023 EXERCISED IN THE CASE OF THIRD PETITIONER ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE DATED 12.04.2023`** - **`Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.06.2024 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2024 IN W.P.(C).NO.20434/2024`** - **`Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.12.2024 IN WPC NO.40261/2024`** - **`*Exhibit TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.10.2024 OF THE P18 SECOND RESPONDENT .`** - **`(*A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.24 OF THE SECOND RESPONDNET IS SUBSTITUTED AS A TRUE OF THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2025 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 23.01.2025 IN I.ANO.1/2025 IN WPC 1932/2025)`** - **`Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2024 IN W.P.(C).NO.15353/2024`** ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitTRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED R2(a)02/01/2025 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 26 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40261/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - **`Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014 IN W.P.(C). NO.30882/2014`** - **`Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION HAVING NO.GSR 609 (E) DATED 22.8.2014`** - **`Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2018 OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN SASIKUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN ILR 2019 (1) KER 614`** - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2016 IN R.C.GUPTA VS. REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER AS REPORTED IN 2018 (14) SCC 809`** - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 22.11.2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PF COMMISSIONER`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PF COMMISSIONER`** - **`Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.11.2022 IN EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION AND ANOTHER V. SUNIL KUMAR B AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2022 (7) KHC 12 (SC)`** - **`Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 09.03.2004 IN W.A.NO.1591/ 2003`** - **`Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.08.2016 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT`** **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 27 :** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** - **`Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.12.2006 ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE CHALAN FOR RS.40,03,150/- DATED 16.11.2006`** - **`Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.03.2008 OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE CHALAN FOR RS.13,12,563/- DATED 26.03.2008`** - **`Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION DATED 20.04.2023 EXERCISED IN THE CASE OF THIRD PETITIONER ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE DATED 12.04.2023`** - **`Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.06.2024 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2024 IN W.P.(C).NO.20434/2024`** ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** - **`Exhibit TRUE COPIES OF THE REMITTANCE CHALLANS BY R4(a) THE UNITS ALONG WITH A LIST OF EMPLOYEES FURNISHED BY TRCMPU AND ALONG WITH UNDERTAKING`** ``` Exhibit TRUECOPYOFTHEPROCEEDINGS R4(b)NO.KR/KCH/4544/PENALDAMAGESAND INTEREST/2020 OF THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - I KOCHI DATED 02.03.2020 Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER.NO.TRU/PER/31- R4(c)A/2024/2891 DATED 03.12.2024 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit TRUECOPYOFTHELETTER R4(d)NO.KR/TVM/RO/LEGAL/PENSIONWPS/2016-17 DATED 08.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE EPFO TO THE KCMMF EXHIBIT RUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/05/2006 ``` **`WP(C) Nos.1932/2025 & 40261/2024` : 28 :** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15578 ``` ``` R2(a) EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 14/06/2023 R2(b)ISSUED BY THE EPFO HEAD OFFICE EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/01/2020 R2(c)ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THIS RESPONDENT OT THE 4TH RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/05/2024 R2(d)ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ABD TGE 4TH RESPONDENT EMPLOYER EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/12/2019 R2(e)HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT EMPLOYER ```