IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32038 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.JAYAPRAKASH,PROPRIETOR, M/S.G.P.N.CASHEW EXPORTING COMPANY,(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DEEPAK EXPORTS ENTERPRISES),KAREEPRA, KIZHUMATHIKKAD,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,NEW DELHI-110092. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. STANDING COUNSEL FOR EPF SMT.T.N.GIRIJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.32038 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.5.2004 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL ATA 523(7)2004 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.9.201 IN ATA 523(7)/04 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32038 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner from Ext.P1 order is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment covered by the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to “the Act” for short and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The contribution paid under the Act did not match the contribution paid under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. On noticing this disparity, the second respondent initiated an enquiry under section 7A of the Act. That led to Ext.P1 order being passed on 20.5.2004, whereby, the second respondent held the petitioner liable to pay a further sum of Rs.5,07,071/-, by way of contribution. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed Ext.P2 W.P.(C).No.32038 of 2011 2 appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal raising various contributions. By Ext.P3 order passed on 20.9.2011, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 and P3. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Appellate Tribunal has not adverted to any one of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal, but contention which have not been raised have been dealt with and rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through Ext.P2 appeal memorandum and Ext.P3 order and contented that the Appellate Tribunal appears to have decided issues which were not raised. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent very fairly submitted that even though, there is no merit in the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal has not considered the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum and therefore, Ext.P3 may be set aside and the Appellate Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the appeal afresh expeditiously. Besides, from a reading of Ext.P3 order I am W.P.(C).No.32038 of 2011 3 satisfied that none of the contentions raised in Ext.P2 appeal memorandum have been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Necessary therefore, Ext.P3 will have to be set aside. I accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P3, restore Ext.P2 appeal to file and direct the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to pass revised orders on the appeal within 4 months from the date on which either the petitioner or the second respondent produces a certified copy of this judgment. Until such time as revised orders are passed on the appeal, recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. P.N.RAVINDRAN,JUDGE pm