IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7320 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. EX SERVICEMEN'S TOP SECURITY SERVICE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ELIPPOPDE, THIRUMALA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PROVIDENT FUND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC SMT. T.N. GIRIJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 7320 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an ex-parte order passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, exercising his powers under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act directing petitioner to remit Rs.1,76,130.30. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 seeking to have Ext.P1 set aside invoking the power of the 2nd respondent under Section 7A(4) of the Act. That is now rejected by Ext.P3 order. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P1 and P3. 2. Admittedly, Ext.P1 is an ex-parte order and by Ext.P2 the petitioner has explained his reasons for his non appearance, which includes the absence of the authorized person due to bereavement in his family. That apart, he has also stated that he was laid up with chicken pox. In Ext.P3, WP(c).No.7320/09 /2/ apart from stating that the petitioner has not produced medical certificate in support of his contentions, nothing has been stated to conclude that the averments in the application made by the petitioner are factually incorrect. 3. In such circumstances, I see no justification to accept the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P3. In my view, the petitioner ought to have given a chance to contest his case on merits. Accordingly, Ext.P1 and P3 are set aside and the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to contest the matter and thereafter pass a speaking order. Needless to say that if any coercive action has been taken following Ext.P1 that will also stand automatically vacated by this judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.7320/09 /2/