IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8738 of 2010(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. XAVIER'S RESIDENCY, A FIRM Q.S.ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, D.RAJ KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY, SRI.L.JAYAWANTH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. M/S.CITY EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, SKP BUILDING, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH, SC, EPF.ORGANISATION. R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SMT.K.PUSHPAVATHI, SRI.K.NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 8738/2010-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2008 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 18/07/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29/06/2009 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/10/2009 IN WP(C) NO. 24370/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 8738 OF 2010 N ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order passed on a review petition filed under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short) against an order passed under Section 7A of the Act. The petitioner is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Act. According to the petitioner, all contributions due in respect of their employees are being remitted without delay or default. However, in spite of the above first respondent initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the Act and a determination order has been passed, which is Ext.P1. Being aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 7B of the Act for review of the same. The complaint of the petitioner is that though the matter was heard by one officer, he was transferred before he could render final judgment and thereafter the person who succeeded him to the office has passed Ext.P3 without conducting any hearing. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the said proceedings before this Court and by Ext.P4, the same was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration. However, without WPC 8738/2010 2 considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, Ext.P5 has been passed. In view of the fact that Ext.P5 does not state any reasons for rejection of the petitioner's contentions, the same is not sustainable, it is submitted. I have heard Adv. V.V.Suresh, counsel for the first respondent also. 2. In view of the fact that Ext.P5 is not supported by any reasons, the same is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. I do so. 3. This writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 petition filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of the Act and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in the light of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in U.P.State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh {2004(3) KLT 686}, expeditiously. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 8738/2010 3