IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26396 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- CREDENCE HOSPITAL,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DR.SANTHAMMA MATHEW ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695011. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE KERALA,BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 STANDING COUNSEL SMT.T.N.GIRIJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.26396 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By Exhibit-P1 order, the respondent herein assessed the contribution payable by the petitioner from January, 2006 to May, 2007. Amount was remitted by the petitioner, as evidenced by Exhibit-P2. Apparently, it was later realised that an amount of Rs.1,29,049/- stated to be the contribution payable in respect of certain contract workers has actually been remitted by the contractor. Accordingly, petitioner filed Exhibit-P3 review petition essentially raising the said contention. Certain other aspects were also highlighted in Exhibit-P3 review petition. Exhibit-P4 certificate evidencing the remittance made by the Contractor is referred to in Exhibit-P3. Exhibit-P3- review petition was dismissed under Exhibit- P6 order and the same has been challenged in this writ petition. W.P ( C) No.26396 of 2008 2 2. I heard Sri.E.K. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.T.N.Girija, learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3. I do not think it is necessary to go into the merits of the contentions raised in the review petition for the reason that I find that the respondent has not given any reason whatsoever in dismissing Exhibit-P3 review petition. The order is cryptic and does not reveal an application of mind on the part of the statutory authority. Accordingly, Exhibit-P6 is quashed and the respondent is directed to reconsider Exhibit-P3 review petition and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent should particularly consider the contentions of the petitioner that a portion of the amount which has been assessed as contribution under Exhibit-P1 order has actually been remitted by the contractor. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.26396 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.26396 of 2008 4