IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23584 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- M.K.JOHN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PAUL & SONS WOODESIGNS INDIA, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031 RESIDING AT MANKUDIYAN HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU EAST, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018 BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINAR, 4TH FLOOR, CORE-II, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 110006. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 23584 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.07.1989 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. 5724/1989. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE CONCILIATION SETTLEMENT DATED 02-12-1989. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.1996. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.6.2003 IN O.P. 10543/96. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 71 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2011 IN ATA 578(7) OF 2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23584 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P7 order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi upholding Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent way back on 14.6.1996 under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner before the first respondent and the Tribunal was that though initially there were 42 workers, the strength of workers came down to 18 and therefore the Act does not apply to the petitioner's establishment. The fact that 42 employees were working in the petitioner's establishment is evident from Ext.P1 judgment of this Court delivered on 28.7.1989 in O.P.No. 5724 of 1989. The list of 42 workers is also appended to the said judgment. Therefore the fact that 42 employees were working in the petitioner's establishment with effect from 1989 cannot be disputed or denied . If that be so, by virtue of section 1(3) (5) of the Act , the Act will continue to apply to the petitioner's WPC No.23584/2011 2 establishment notwithstanding the fact the the number of persons employed therein fell below 20 at a later period of time. Such being the situation, the orders passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be illegal. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps