IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 748 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.31954/2000 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MNAGER, GURUJYOTHI MODEL SCHOOL NEDUNGOLAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVATH SINGH(PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KERALA BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VII FLOOR, 60 SKYLARK BUILDING NEHRU PALACE, NEHRU DELHI 110 019 3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -4. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1-2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, ALONG WITH RP NO. 750 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- R.P.No.748/09 in OP.No.31954/00 & R.P.No.750/09 in OP.No.22711/00 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009. O R D E R By filing these review petitions, the petitioners herein are seeking to have the judgment dated 25.5.2009 dismissing the Original Petitions reviewed. 2. By that judgment this court upheld the order passed by respondents 1 and 2, ordering coverage of establishment and the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioners. By the aforesaid two orders the statutory authorities concurrently took the view that irrespective of the change of hands, the establishment remains the same and therefore liable for coverage under the Act. The contention that the employees strength was below the statutory minimum of 20 was also overruled referring to the documents available to the Enquiry Officer during the course of the equiry held under Section 7A of the RPNo.748/09 & anor. 2 Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The original Petitions filed challenging the aforesaid proceedings were dismissed by a common judgment rendered by this court on 25.5.2009 affirming both the aforesaid findings. It is seeking review of the aforesaid judgment the present Review Petitions have been filed. 3. The contention raised is that while rendering the judgment this court did not advert to Exts.P2 and P3, the interim order passed by the civil court in O.S.No.86/93 and the judgment dismissing the suit. A reference to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal shows that these proceedings have been duly adverted to by the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal has taken note of that fact, the suit was ultimately dismissed. Even apart from that, the fact that a suit was filed and an interim order was obtained has no impact on the conclusion arrived at by the respective authorities, that irrespective of the change of hands the establishment and the employees remained the same. Therefore the fact that these RPNo.748/09 & anor. 3 two documents were not adverted to in the judgment does not make out a case of error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the judgment. Review Petitions therefore are devoid of merit and are dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/