IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 156 of 2011(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.GOPINATHA PANICKER, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. P.N.M.HOSPITAL, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAN BABU SRI.P.R.PRATEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1&3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.156 OF 2011(T) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P9 and P10, orders upholding Exts.P4 and P8. 2. Petitioner is an establishment to which the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 are applicable. Ext.P3 is an order passed under Section 7A of the Act which was challenged before the Tribunal by filing Ext.P4 appeal. Ext.P3 was followed by Ext.P6, an order passed under Section 14B of the Act levying damages on the petitioner. This order was challenged in Ext.P8 appeal. These appeals were heard and have been rejected by Exts.P9 and P10 orders. 3. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions including regarding the non-compliance of Section 26-B of the Scheme framed under the Act, a reading of Ext.P9 order confirming Ext.P3 shows that before the Appellate Tribunal the only contention raised was that casual employees were not employees under the Act and therefore were not liable to be covered. That contention was appreciated and has been WPC.No. 156/2011 :2 : answered against the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner having urged the only aforesaid contention and none else, it is not open to the petitioner to raise other contentions before this Court to get Ext.P9 invalidated. Petitioner has no case that any of the grounds urged by him, were not considered by the Tribunal. Further, reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in holding that casual employees are also covered by the Act is unreasonable and do not warrant any interference. In such circumstances I see absolutely no ground to invalidate Ext.P9 Order. 4. As far as Ext.P10 order is concerned, by this order Ext.P6 order levying damages under Section 14-B of the EPF Act on the petitioner has been confirmed. Now that by Ext.P5, Ext.P3 order issued under Section 7A has been upheld, the liability for damages also has to be confirmed. If that be so, Ext.P10 order confirming Ext.P6 order levying damages also cannot be successfully impugned. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 156/2011 :3 :