IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20086 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.ILLAHIA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, MULAVOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA REP.BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.NITHIN JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(ENFORCEMENT)KOCHI. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).20086/2009 ....................... Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. Petitioner is an Educational Institution and it challenges the action under Ext.P2 bringing it under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and determining amount due from it under Section 7A of the Act. 3. It is seen that the prime dispute raised by the petitioner arises from the question as to whether the college hostel functioning in the same premises as the College, could be treated as part of the establishment of the college itself. According to the petitioner, the college mess is being run by inmates on a purely “Dividing Rate System” and the Management is not involved in the process as such. A report by the Enforcement Officer, inter alia with reference to the day book for February 2006 has been taken into account and the respondents W.P.(C).20086/2009 2 proceeded to treat the persons employed in the college mess also as workers of the establishment, thereby resulting in the establishment being treated as liable to be covered as such. 4. I am of the view that the matter requires a reconsideration, in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner that the hostel itself was started only in the year 2004 and therefore, an assessment with effect from 2002 may not be appropriate. 5. It is true that as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, prompt steps were not taken by the petitioner to bring the relevant facts to the notice of the respondents. In fact, an application for review of the order raising almost the same grounds, was belated and by passage of time, the right to prefer an appeal has also been forfeited. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the entire amount assessed as per Ext.P2, for a reconsideration of the issue. W.P.(C).20086/2009 3 7. In these circumstances, Ext.P2 shall stand set aside provided the entire amount assessed as per Ext.P2, namely Rs.3,88,795/-, + cost of Rs.7,500/- is paid to the respondents, within four weeks from today. If the amount is not remitted within the aforementioned time frame, then, Ext.P2 order shall stand confirmed and it will be open to the respondents to enforce the same and take further steps, as contemplated by the provisions of the Act. If the amount and the cost, as directed above, is paid within the aforementioned time frame, then, fresh notice shall be issued by the respondents, and an enquiry in terms of Section 7A of the Act shall be conducted giving the petitioner adequate opportunity to prove his contentions. Revised orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in such an event. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs