IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25757 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- EMPLOYMENT PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (LEGAL). BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. M/S. HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, PB NO.171., PUTHENCHANTHAI, TRIVANDRUM-REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. PIN-695 014. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINAR, CORS-II, 4TH FLOOR, LAKSHMINAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 004. R1 BY ADV. MR.B.S. KRISHNAN, SC, MR.K. ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 25757 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19/01/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PETITIONER DATED 03/05/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17/11/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/12/2006 BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16/01/2007 ISSUED UNDER SEC.14B OF THE ACT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/01/2011 PASSED BY THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25757 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P8, an order passed by the 2nd respondent allowing appeal filed by the 1st respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that, against Ext.P6 order issued by the petitioner exercising its powers under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the 1st respondent challenged the same by filing Ext.P7 appeal before the 2nd respondent,. That appeal has been allowed by Ext.P8 oder, which is under challenge. 3. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is a Company incorporated by the Government of Kerala which is engaged in activities in the handicrafts sector. However, Ext.P8 order proceeds on the basis that the appellant is engaged in the business of coffee and cardamom. This itself discloses non application of mind and the mechanical manner in which the order has been passed. On that ground itself, I set aside Ext.P8 and direct that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider Ext.P7 appeal WPC No. 25757/11 :2 : with notice to the parties concerned and pass fresh orders adverting to the contentions of the respective parties. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp