IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21932 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- TATA TEA LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, SPECIAL PROJECT OFFICE, MUNNAR-685 612, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (ADMN.), MR. PRATAP RAMDAS. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. BY SRI.JOY THATTIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 21932 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order passed by the respondent under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act was sought to be reviewed at the instance of the petitioner who filed Ext.P2 application in this behalf. Ext.P2 was directed to be considered by the respondent by this Court in WPC No.19714/2009 dated 14.7.2009. It seems that the respondent was unaware of the said judgment and proceeded to pass Ext.P3 order rejecting Ext.P2 application. Ext.P3 reads as follows:- “The review petition under Section 7B, of EPF & MP Act, 1952 dated 'nil' filed against 7A Proceedings bearing No.KR/KTM/1075/Enf.I(3)/ 2009/4063 dated 26.5.2009 (9.6.2009) forwarded along with letter No.BM/101, dated 10.7.2009 received in this Office on 13.07.2009 has been examined on its admissibility and found that the same is not entertainable as no grounds as contemplated under Section 7 (B) (1) are made out. Hence, the review petition is hereby rejected.” W.P ( C) No. 21932 of 2009 2 2. Ext.P3 has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. E.K. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Joy Thattil, learned standing counsel for the respondent. 4. Sri.Joy Thattil submits that the scope of review of Section 7B of the Act is limited and the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Ext.P1 in a properly instituted appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. On going through Ext.P2, I find that the request made therein is eligible to be considered within the limited grounds otherwise emanating from Section 7B of the Act. The question as to whether the order is liable to be reviewed on merits by the authority is to be considered by the Authority itself. That has not been properly considered. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside and the respondent shall consider Ext.P2, after hearing a representative of the petitioner also. Fresh orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner being compelled to challenge the original W.P ( C) No. 21932 of 2009 3 order Ext.P1 in an appeal then the petitioner may advance it's contention on the basis of the time taken for passing a revised order pursuant to this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 21932 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No. 21932 of 2009 5