IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20994 of 2010(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- C.K.MOHANKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.OREGON TECHNOLOGIES, KUMAR BUILDING, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ASST.P.F.COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 2. ORTEC SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, C/O.KUMAR BUILDING, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. QUICK AID SERVICES, C/O.KUMAR BUILDING, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 4. THE REGISTRAR, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 60, SKYLARK BUILDINGS, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-685 060. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 20994 OF 2010 Y ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P17 order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in an appeal, A.T.A.204(7)2007 on the ground that the same has been passed without hearing the petitioner or his counsel. The petitioner is engaged in Software Development, Website designing and Data Entry work. According to him he employs less than 20 workers and is therefore not covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short). However, in spite of the above, the petitioner sought for voluntary coverage and got his establishment covered by the provisions of the Act. The petitioner alleges that the first and second respondents have clubbed his establishment with two other establishments by name Messrs. Ortech Systems and Services and Messrs. Oregon Technologies and Quick Aid Services and passed a determination order under Section 7A of the Act demanding an exorbitant amount as contribution. The said order evidenced by Ext.P15 was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal. The appeal memorandum is Ext.P16. WPC 20994/2010 2 Ext.P16 shows that the name of the counsel who has filed the appeal is Mr. Anil Narayanan, Advocate, NLRA-52, Neerazhi Lane, Ulloor, Medical College P.O. Trivandum-11. According to the petitioner, without issuing notice to him or his counsel, his appeal has been dismissed as per Ext.P17 order dated 8/3/2010. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the same. 2. I have heard Smt. T.N.Girija who appear for respondents 1 and 2. 3. A perusal of Ext.P17 shows the name of one Abil Ali Beeran shown as the Advocate for the appellant, who has been heard by the Appellate Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the said person had not been engaged by him. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P17 is liable to be set aside. As noticed above, the appeal memorandum shows that it is filed by Anil Narayanan whereas the person who is stated to have been heard by the Tribunal is Abil Ali Beeran. It is therefore clear that neither the petitioner nor his counsel has been heard before passing Ext.P17. In the above circumstances Ext.P17 is liable to be set aside. 4. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Ext.P17 is set aside. The fourth respondent, The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider the petitioner's appeal, WPC 20994/2010 3 A.T.A.204(7)2007 afresh and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, after issuing notice to and hearing the petitioner or his counsel in the matter. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 20994/2010 4