IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5518 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANSAR RAHIM, S/O. LATE A.A. RAHIM, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALIK DHINAR I.T.C., POLAYATHODE, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVNANTHAPURAM -4. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.5518 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. Petitioner is the Managing Director of Malik Dinar ITC, Polayathode, an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. In this writ petition, he is mainly aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3 orders passed under Section 7A of the Act and Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 orders rejecting his application under Section 7-B of the Act. 2. A reading of Exts.P2 and P3 shows that these orders were passed ex-parte, taking note of the petitioner's absence during the enquiry. According to the petitioner, in view of Exts.P1 to P1(t), 12-A forms produced in this writ petition, covering the period of Exts.P2 and P3, he has no liability to pay any additional amount. However, for the reason that the petitioner was not present when the WP(c).No.5518/09 2 enquiry was conducted, Exts.P2 and P3 were passed. Aggrieved by these orders, though the petitioner filed Exts.P9 and P10 applications under Section 7 B of the Act, that was also rejected by Exts.P12 and P13 for the reason that these applications were submitted beyond 30 days provided in the Act. 3. True the petitioner is to be blamed for his absence, which resulted in Exts.P2 and P3. He also is to be blamed for the delay in filing Ext.P9 and P10 applications under Section 7-B seeking review of Exts.P2 and P3. But however the petitioner's case is that it was on account of his cardiac aliment and Haj pilgrimage that he could not be present. Yet another contention that is raised relying on Ext.P1 series of document is that the entire amount that is due has already been paid and the petitioner submits that if an opportunity is given he will be able to satisfy the authorities regarding the sustainability of his contentions. WP(c).No.5518/09 3 4. Having regard tot he above facts I feel that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to contest the matter on merits ad therefore in order to enable the petitioner to do so I set aside Exts.P2, P3, P12 and P13. It is directed that the 2nd respondent shall on the production of a copy of this judgment issue notice to the petitioner, giving him an opportunity to produce the document, that he shall avail and thereafter pass fresh orders exercising his powers under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.5518/09 4