IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25805 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.VISHNU CASHEW COMPANY PALLISSERIKKAL P.O, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR NANDAKUMAR N. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION KERALA REGION, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER -II, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM 691 001 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING,CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 691000 ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.25805 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the Proprietor of M/s.Vishnu Cashew Company covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'EPF Act' only) filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the first respondent directing the second respondent to continue with the enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act to determine the dues in respect of the petitioner's establishment. Ext.P3 has been challenged mainly on the ground of failure to strictly adhere to the procedures prescribed under paragraph 26-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. It is contented that the employees were not summoned and examined in terms of paragraph 26-B of the EPF Scheme, by the first respondent. Obviously, the petitioner is aggrieved by the finding with respect to the non- enrollment of 28 employees, who, according to the authorities, employed by the establishment but were denied the EPF benefits. Earlier, the petitioner on receipt of notice of enquiry under Section 7A requested for W.P.(C) NO.25805/2010 2 an enquiry in terms of paragraph 26-B of the EPF scheme. Apparently, after accepting the request of the petitioner, proceedings pursuant to issuance of notice under Section 7A of the EPF Act were kept in abeyance and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated enquiry in terms of paragraph 26-B of the EPF Scheme. It is in the said proceedings that the aforementioned finding was made after perusing the records and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. As per Ext.P3, the petitioner has to enroll all the 28 identified employees as reported by the Enforcement Officer in his report dated 17.8.2009 into the Employees' Provident Fund. It was in the said circumstances that the second respondent was directed to continue with the enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act and to determine the dues in respect of the petitioner's establishment. 2. Evidently, as per Ext.P3, the first respondent directed the second respondent only to continue with the enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act for which notice was already served on the petitioner and to determine the dues in respect of the petitioner's establishment. If the petitioner is ultimately aggrieved by the order passed on the conclusion of the enquiry under Section 7A, it will be open to the petitioner to prefer an W.P.(C) NO.25805/2010 3 appeal against such an order of the competent authority. In other words, in case of an adverse order in the enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act, it will leave the petitioner remediless since such an order would be appealable. Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken any steps to get the said 28 employees examined in the proceedings in terms of paragraph 26- B of EPF Scheme. That apart, the said 28 identified employees cannot be said to be aggrieved by Ext.P3 order. In view of the said position available in this Writ Petition, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P3 whereby the first respondent only directed the second respondent to continue with the enquiry under Section 7A of the Act. In view of the fact that earlier, a notice under Section 7A has been issued, necessarily it has to attain its logical conclusion. In fact, that alone has been directed by the first respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.25805/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.25805/2010 5