IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29768 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ HOPE PLANTATIONS,(A DIVISION OF PODDAR UDYOG LTD.) GLENMARY ESTATE,PEERMADE,IDUKKI, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 31,B B D BAGH, HONGKONG HOUSE,CALCUTTA-700 001,REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,MR.K.BABU. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARINARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, CHALAKUZHY BUILDINGS,CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 29768 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a tea estate in Peermade. Proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The petitioner has been directed to produce certain documents. The petitioner has produced the same before the respondent. Petitioner's grievance now is that those documents produced by the petitioner are required for the day today activities of the estate and since the respondent is not returning those documents, the petitioner is seriously prejudiced. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to return the documents produced by the petitioner as mentioned in Ext.P3 list as expeditiously as possible. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to consider Ext.P4 & P6 request and pass appropriate orders returning the documents belonging to the petitioner.” 2. The learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that the petitioner is not co-operating with W.P(C) No. 29768 of 2009 -2- Section 7A enquiry at all. Although they had produced some documents, in spite of repeated requests, they are not producing additional documents, which has prompted the respondent to issue a warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He would further submit that the matter is being adjourned at the request of the petitioner from time to time and if the petitioner had co- operated with the enquiry under Section 7A, the enquiry could have been completed long ago and the documents could have been returned to the petitioner. The standing counsel also submits that since the documents produced are voluminous which are necessary for the enquiry under Section 7A, it is impossible to give back the documents retaining copies of the same. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the practical solution for the matter is to direct the respondent to complete the proceedings under Section 7A expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on W.P(C) No. 29768 of 2009 -3- 30.10.2009 with all documents called for by the respondent and all evidence in support of the petitioner's case and be ready for the hearing in proceedings under Section 7A. Respondent shall complete the proceedings under Section 7A within ten days from 30.10.2009 and thereafter return the documents produced by the petitioner within one week therefrom. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs