IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14720 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- M/S.SWARGA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS(P) LTD., NO.2, HILL TOP MANOR, DIAMAND HILL, VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, K.R.SUDHEER, S/O. K.RAJAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT T.C.15/655(1),PALOTTUKONAM ROAD,TVM.10. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISASION ER,EMPLOYEES, PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,REGIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R1 & R2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.14720 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent to club the petitioner-establishment with six other establishments by initiating proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner-establishment is a distinctly separate establishment having no connection with any of the other six establishments. I am of opinion that all these matters would have to be agitated before the 1st respondent in the Section 7A proceedings. Needless to say, the petitioner would be given every opportunity to adduce evidence and produce materials to show that the petitioner-establishment is a separate establishment distinct from any of the other six establishments. The 1st respondent would be bound to consider the same and take into account all the materials submitted by the petitioner in support of their case. If the ultimate order to be passed by the 1st respondent is against W.P.(c)No.14720/08 2 the petitioner, the petitioner would also be entitled to file an appeal against that order before the Tribunal notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings were initiated by issuing notice to one of the other establishments. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.14720/08 3