IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 953 of 2010(A) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35645/2009 DATED 20/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- P.R. JOSEPH ROY, FORMER SUB-EDITOR, CHANDRIKA DAILY, CALICUT, RESIDING AT PALLATH HOUSE, FRIENDSHIP NAGAR, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001. 3. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001. 4. THE CHANDRIKA DAILY, THE MUSLIM PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD., CHANDRIKA BUILDINGS, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-673 001. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE CHANDRIKA DAILY, THE MUSLIM PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD., CHANDRIKA BUILDINGS, CALICUT, PIN-673 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOTTIL, SC. R4 & R5 BY ADV. MR.M. ASHOKAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.953 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C). NO.35645 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is the review petitioner. As per judgment dated 20.9.2010, the above captioned Writ Petition was closed recording the submission made on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 to the effect that the amount payable by the fourth respondent under the Employees' Provident Fund Act and Scheme have already been paid. 2. A perusal of the grounds raised in the review petition would reveal that essentially, the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the non- payment of the provident fund contribution payable for the period from April, 1995 to July, 1995 by the fourth respondent and therefore, the contention is that the said judgment would stand in the way of the right of the petitioner to pursue with the claim for the aforesaid period. 3. I have heard the counsel for the review petitioner, the counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. It is evident from the judgment sought to be reviewed that this Court has not made any observation with respect to R.P. NO.953/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO. 35645/2009 2 the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to raise claim to get provident fund amount pertaining to the aforesaid period. If the fourth respondent has not effected remittance during the period from April, 1995 to July, 1995, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the assessing authority raising such claim and in which event, the judgment will not stand in the way of consideration of the said claim by the assessing authority. Subject to the above observations, this review petition is disposed of. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc R.P. NO.953/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO. 35645/2009 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 R.P. NO.953/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO. 35645/2009 4