IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8688 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANIMEKHALA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.SAVITHRI PROPRIETORIX, M/S.THANAL PLACEMENT SERVICE & REAL ESTATE & OTHER ACTIVITIES, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, GAURI NAGER, PONGANMOODU, CHENTHY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.B.CHANDRA LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.G.VINOD, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).8688/2009 ....................... Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, in respect of an establishment 'Thanal Placement Service & Real Estate and other activities. According to the petitioner, she does not employ any person. She only makes available persons for different domestic services in different houses. This crucial aspect has not been correctly understood by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. I am not inclined to consider the contentions as against Ext.P11. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a provision for review of an order in the nature of Exts.P11 and P12 under Section 7B of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the period for filing W.P.(C).8688/2009 2 a review is over. But in circumstances where the writ petition has been filed on 17.3.2009, I am of the view that if the petitioner files a review within 30 days, same shall be treated as within time and appropriate orders shall be passed within three months thereafter. Enforcement of Exts.P11 and P12 shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed on the review petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs