IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 862 of 2008(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2636/2004 Dated 24/06/2008 PETITIONERS : RESPONDENTS ----------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. THE REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------ K.RAVEENDRANATH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.DEEPTHI DIAMONDA INDIA LIMITED, KONATHUKUNNU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAMAKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.C.NO. 2636/2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P.No. 862 of 2008 & W. P (C) No. 2636 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The Provident Fund Organisation has filed this review petition for review of my judgment dated 24-6-2008 in the writ petition. The contention is that the amount of Rs. 1,69,735.25 which was taken by me as the defaulted amount on which damages were calculated was not actually the principal amount. As per Ext. P1, it was the balance amount due from the petitioner as contributions as on the date of issuing Ext. P1. But, the amounts which the petitioner had already paid were also paid belatedly in respect of which also damages are payable and therefore my assumption that the amount of Rs. 1,69,735.25 is the principal amount on which damages were calculated is not correct. The mistake occurred on account of the failure on the part of the counsel to bring this fact to the attention of this Court, which is an oversight, is the contention raised in the review petition. Counsel would also submit that the question regarding imposition of damages on the administrative charges is also pending consideration by a Division Bench in W.A.No. 2182/2006 against the judgment based on which I had held that on administrative charges no damages can be imposed 2. I have heard both sides. 3. It is true that in Ext. P1 order, the balance amount payable by the petitioner as contributions is mentioned as Rs. 1,69,735.25 after deducting the amounts already paid. It may be true that the amounts already paid were also belated payments. But the same is not evident from the impugned order imposing damages, which is Ext. P6. But all the same, I feel that the Provident Fund Organisation should be given another opportunity to clarify the matter, after R.P. No. 862/08 & W.P.C. 2636/04 -: 2 :- affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. However, I am not inclined to review my decision regarding the liability for damages in respect of administrative charges in so far as in the said writ appeal, admittedly, no stay order has been passed. Accordingly, my judgment dated 24-6-2008 is reviewed and the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The finding that no damages are imposable on administrative charges would remain as such. However, the Provident Fund Organisation shall re-assess the damages payable by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner afresh. For this purpose, Ext. P6 is quashed. The assessment of damages shall be strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by me in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. Asst. P.F. Commnr. & Others, [2006 (3) KLJ 698]. The review petition and writ petition are disposed of as above. This is subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge the fresh orders in accordance with law, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/