IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27534 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- M/S.HOTEL HIGHWAR PALACE, NH-47, PEECHI JUNCTION, PATTIKKAD, TRICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JOHN JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PARAKKAL HOUSE, LAKKATTOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.FEROS KHAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, TRICHUR. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, TRICHUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) - R3 SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE - R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 27534 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is running a Bar Hotel by FL-3 license issued by the Commissioner of Excise. Apparently, the petitioner has also taken license to run Railway Canteens at Ernakulam South and North Railway Stations. Petitioner submits that the entire work force employed by the petitioner and workers in the establishment of the petitioner are covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and the schemes framed therein. Petitioner submits that regular contributions have been made in respect of said Employees Provident Fund. Petitioner further submits that separate acquittance rolls have been maintained in respect of the workers working in the Highway Palace Hotel at Pattikkad and details of remittance made for the period 2007-2008 have also been furnished. Petitioner is aggrieved by the steps taken by respondents 1 and 2 to require the petitioner to include W.P ( C) No. 27534 of 2008 2 the petitioner’s workers as workers under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Workers Welfare Fund Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner’s workers are already covered by another beneficiary legislation of a similar character, the proviso to Section 2 (g) exempts the petitioner from getting the workers employed by him from registration under the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Welfare Fund Act. In my view, these are matters to be considered in the first instance by the authority under the Employees Provident Fund Act. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation in this regard before the 1st respondent, within a period of one month from today. The 1st respondent shall then either enquire into the objections or cause such enquiry to be made and pass a reasoned order if he comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to get the workers W.P ( C) No. 27534 of 2008 3 employed by the petitioner registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Workers Welfare Fund Act also in spite of the petitioner’s establishment being covered by the Employees Provident Fund Act. Such orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation being filed by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, if any steps have already been taken by respondents 1 and 2, against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Workers Welfare Fund Act ,the same shall be kept in abeyance and proceeded with further only after an order is passed by the 1st respondent in the manner aforementioned. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 27534 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No. 27534 of 2008 5