IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 37985 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM, PROPRIETOR, A.S.CASHEW INDUSTRIES KILIKOLLUR , KOLLAM. 2. JAMEELA BEEVI, PROPRIETRIX J.S.CASHEW EXPORTS, KILIKOLOOR, KOLLAM. 3. MOHAMMED NOUFAL, MANAGING PARTNER, TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-11, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION KOLLAM. ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37985 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT First and second petitioners are the proprietrix of A.S. Cashew Exports and J.S. Cashew Exports, Kollam and the 3rd petitioner is the Managing partner of Tasty Nut Industries, Kollam. Their establishments are covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. According to the petitioners, by Exhibits P1 to P5 notices issued by the respondents 1 and 2, enquiry under Section 7A of the Act has been initiated for the period 2004-2008. It is stated while enquiry is thus pending, the 3rd respondent, an Enforcement Officer, working under respondents 1 and 2 has issued Exhibits P6 to P8 notices calling upon the petitioners to produce documents pertaining to the period 1/04/2005 onwards. Thereafter, he has issued Exhibit P12 notice threatening prosecution under Section 14 of the Act. By Exhibit P13, the 3rd respondent again issued two notices to the petitioners, demanding production of certain documents. Exhibit P14 is the detailed reply given by the petitioners. By Exhibit P15, the petitioners were again called upon to produce documents for the W.P.(C) No.37985/2008 2 period April 2005 to November, 2008. 3. On account of the parallel proceedings thus initiated by the 3rd respondent evidenced by Exhibits P6 to P8, P12, P13 and P15, this writ petition has been filed, mainly contending that since enquiry under Section 7A pertaining to the very same period has already been initiated by respondents 1 and 2, there is no warrant for separate proceedings at the instance of 3rd respondent. 4. In the statement filed by the Standing Counsel for respondents, the fact that enquiry under Section 7A pertaining to the aforesaid period has already been initiated is not disputed. However, according to the respondents, the 3rd respondent is equally competent under Section 13 of the Act to initiate enquiry for the purposes specified in Section 13(2). It is therefore stated that there is no irregularity in initiating the proceedings and that the 3rd respondent is entitled to continue the same. 5. From the facts, it is evident that 7A enquiry in relation to the period 2005-2008 has already been initiated by respondents 1 and 2. Once enquiry has been initiated by respondents 1 to 2 under Section 7A relating to a specified period, in my view there is no justification for, yet another officer initiating parallel enquiry in W.P.(C) No.37985/2008 3 respect of the very same period. Since the period is the same, documents relevant for 7A enquiry will be the documents relevant in the enquiry now initiated by the 3rd respondent also. The result will be multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, it is only appropriate for the respondents 1 and 2, themselves to continue the enquiry and conclude the same in pursuance to the notice that they have already issued. If the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent covers any period in excess of the period covered by Exhibits P1 to P5, it will certainly open to the respondents 1 to 2 to issue notice covering that period as well. 6. Be that as it may, for the aforesaid reasons, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue the enquiry and complete the same with notice to the parties as expeditiously as possible and in the light of the observations made above. In view of the above, I set aside Exhibits P6 to P8, P12 ,P13 and P15 notices issued by the 3rd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm