IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.14906 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 16, 2011. Ex-Subedar (Retd.) Surinder Singh and another .....Petitioners versus The Employees Provident Fund Organization and ors. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners have made a complaint dated 26.5.2011 (Annexure P-1) to respondent No.2 against the management of Vajra Golden Lion Central Instittute, Jalandhar Cantt, i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is alleged that no action has been taken on the said complaint by the official respondents compelling the petitioners to approach this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, however without expressing any views on the allegations made by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the complaint said to have been made by the petitioners alleging violation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous CWP No.14906 of 2011 [2] Provisions Act, 1952 and convey its decision to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. This order however shall not be construed as a direction that action must be taken against respondent Nos.3 to 5 even if the complaint made by the petitioners has no substance. Respondent No.2 shall keep in view the fact that this order is being passed without hearing respondent Nos.3 to 5, therefore, the directions shall not be interpreted to cause any prejudice to these respondents. In other words, the complaint should be looked into objectively and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. August 16, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE