IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29891 of 2008(H) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.MAHAVISHNU CASHEW FACTORY, EDAVATTOM, KARUVELIL.P.O, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM.REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, S.RANJITH LAL, S/O.LATE SREEDHARA KURUP, M/S.MAHAVISHNU CASHEW INDUSTRY, EDAVATTOM, KARUVELIL.P.O, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANISATION, MANNANIYYA COMPLEX, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, SC, GCDA FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29891 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 7 A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Ext.P3 shows that it was passed without considering the objections of the establishment. It is stated in Ext.P3 that in spite of repeated requests, the employer had failed to attend the enquiry or to make the payment of the dues in respect of the enrolled employees. The explanation offered in this regard was that the erstwhile proprietor viz., the father of the person, who has signed and verified the writ petition, was suffering from serious illness during June and July, 2008 and that he died on 7.7.2008. There was a plea for adjournment citing the illness of the erstwhile proprietor and that was not heeded to. These facts are narrated in Ext.P2. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. It is pointed out that the petitioner has remitted all the dues and seeks W.P.(C).NO.29891 /08 :: 2 :: permission to file an application for reconsideration of Ext.P3 under Section 7A(1) (iv) of the said Act. In the result, it is open to the petitioner to file an application for reconsideration of Ext.P3. If it is done within one month from today, it shall be considered and a fresh order shall be passed by the 2nd respondent, after hearing the petitioner within a period of four months thereafter. Enforcement of Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance until fresh orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on the application under Section 7A(1)(iv) of the said Act. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge