IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1043 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.HOTEL AMIRTHA LIMITED,THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR B.HARI MURALI, S/O.R.SREEDHARA PANICKER,BRINDAVAN, THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER,EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SMT. T.N. GIRIJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.1043 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the 3rd respondent, on an application filed by the petitioner invoking his power under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 seeking to review Ext.P2 order passed by him exercising the powers under Section 7A of the said Act. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that one of the grounds for rejection of the petitioner's application was his non appearance at the time of hearing. The petitioner contends that due to personal reasons, including strike that it was was going on in the establishment and the ailment of one of the Directors, that he was not in a position to appear before the 3rd respondent when the application for review was taken up for hearing. WP(c).No.1043/09 2 3. Though the standing counsel for the respondents, pointing out that even at the stage 7A enquiry the petitioners kept away from the proceedings, contended showing that there is no bona fide in the justification now offered by the petitioner for his non appearance, still having regard to the fact that consequent on Ext.P2 and P4, the petitioner is saddled with monetary liabilities, I am inclined to give the petitioner yet another opportunity. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P4 and direct the 3rd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and after hearing him pass orders on the petition filed by the petitioner for review under Section 7B of the EPF Act. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.1043/09 3