IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25479 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PROF.STANLO JOHNES, S/O.JOHNSON, HONOURARY MANAGER, SAMUEL, L.M.S.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHERUVARAKKANAM, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER/ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 004. BY SMT. N. GIRIJA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25479 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the manager of a private school. The 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, which resulted in Ext. P3 order, whereby the petitioner had been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,55,385.30 as contributions payable under the Act in respect of the schools run by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a review petition under Section 7B of the Act, wherein the petitioner raised the question of coverability of the schools under the Act. That resulted in Ext. P5 order, whereby that question was also considered and it was decided that the petitioner's schools are liable to be covered under the Act. The petitioner challenged those orders in W.P(C) No. 16078/2009, which resulted in Ext. P7 judgment, in which a learned Single Judge declined jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner has not availed of the statutory appellate remedy and did not approach this Court within time. In W.A.No. 1488/2009, by Ext. P8 judgment, the Division Bench, while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge, observed that if fresh proceedings are initiated as per Ext. P6, it is open to the petitioner to put forth all his objections irrespective of Exts.P3 and P5 orders. Now, Ext. P6 notice has been issued to the petitioner under Section 7A of the Act for determining the amounts of contribution payable by the petitioner for subsequent periods. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P6 . 2. The petitioner's contention is that till Ext. P6 proceedings are finalised, Exts.P3 and P5 shall not be enforced. However, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief for a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the W.P.C. No. 254792009. -: 2 :- proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 notice expeditiously. 3. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the P.F. Organisation also. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. But, I make it clear that the petitioner shall be present with all his evidence and contentions on the date fixed for hearing and he shall not seek any adjournment of the matter. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.