IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1893 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S. SRE VIDYADHIRAJA VIDYANILAYAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NEYYATINKARA, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINICPAL G. SADASIVAN NAIR. 2. G. SADASIVAN NAIR, PRINCIPAL, M/S. SRE VIDYADHIRAJA VIDYANILAYAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NEYYATINKARA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 05/02/2009 IN I.A.NO.1061/2009) ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1893 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an educational institution. The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P3 & P7. 2. According to the petitioner for the period from March, 2007 to October, 2008, the Provident Fund dues of the employees were correctly quantified and paid. However, following Ext.P2, Ext.P3 order was passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act directing the petitioner to remit additional amounts. The petitioner submits that aggrieved by the said order, they sought review of the same by filing an application under Section 7B of the Act, and that resulted in Ext.P7 order. 3. The petitioner seeks to impugn Ext.P7 mainly on the ground that the order was passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing. As is evident from Ext.P7 itself, though notice was issued and a hearing was scheduled on 17/09/2008, according to the respondent, the petitioner remained absent. WP(C) No.1893/2009 -2- However, the reason stated by the petitioner justifying his absence is that he was under medical treatment at that time, and Ext.P5 medical certificate is referred to in that context. 4. Having regard to the fact that, at that time the petitioner was under medical treatment, I am not in a position to conclude that the absence of the petitioner was due to any latches on his part deserving an adverse order against him. Therefore, I feel that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits and the respondent shall decide on Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 5. For these reasons, I set aside Ext.P7 and direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner with notice and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as well. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg