IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28641 of 2009(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.N.PRASAD, S/O.NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, KARICKATHIL CASHEWS, ALIYADU P.O., VELLANICKAL, VENJARAMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SANTHI NIKETHAN, KAKKODE P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. ` 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. R1 TO R3 BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 28641 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in demanding contributions towards the Employees Provident Fund as per an order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short). According to the petitioner, he was remitting contributions regularly and without fail. He contends that he has conducted the factory only from February 2006 to September 2007. With respect to the said period contributions have been made and there are no arrears due or payable by him. In spite of the above, Ext.P3 order has been passed demanding contributions from him for the period from November 2004 to March 2007. 2. Disputing his liability to pay the amounts demanded the petitioner had filed a petition for review under Section 7B. However, the review was declined by Ext.P4. According to the petitioner Ext.P4 has been passed without giving a proper opportunity for the petitioner to place all the relevant materials in support of his case. The petitioner also contends that he was sick WPC 28641/2009 2 and therefore, not in a position to produce all his documents at the appropriate time. 3. It is pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that during the period covered by Ext.P5 Medical Certificate, the petitioner himself had appeared before the second respondent on 15.4.2007. Therefore, it is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner lacks bonafides. Further, though as many as seven opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce documents, it is contended that the opportunities were not availed of by the petitioner. Therefore, he is not entitled to be granted any further opportunity. 4. The counsel for the petitioner on the other hand refers to Ext.P1 to point out that even as per the endorsement therein it is clear that the factory had started functioning only with effect from February 2006. Therefore, the petitioner could not be fastened with the liability for any previous period. It is also pointed out that relevant forms by which remittances were made periodically are all in the possession of the respondents. The petitioner has produced Ext.P6 series forms to support his contention that remittances were being regularly made. WPC 28641/2009 3 5. In view of the fact that there is no indication in Ext.P4 to conclude that Exts.P6 and P7 series documents were taken into account by the authority before passing Ext.P4 order, I think that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to prove his case. Ext.P4 order does not disclose a proper consideration of the petitioner's case. In view of the above Ext.P4 is unsustainable. 6. The order of the second respondent evidenced herein by Ext.P4 issued under Section 7B of the Act is therefore set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the grievances of the petitioner under Section 7B of the Act afresh, particularly taking into account Exts.P6 and P7 series as well as any other documents that may be produced by the petitioner at the time of hearing. The orders as indicated above shall be issued by the second respondent after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents in support of his case and after affording an opportunity of being heard. Until orders are passed in terms of the above directions, coercive steps to enforce the order passed under Section 7A evidenced herein by Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 28641/2009 4 WPC 28641/2009 5 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: