IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5390 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VALLUVANAD HOSPITAL COMPLEX LIMITED 7/702 A, SHORANUR-PALAKKAD ROAD, KANNIYAMPURAM POST,OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD 679 104,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DR. M. RAMAKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ERANJIPPALAM KOZHIKODE. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ERANJIPPALAM KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 5390 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, which is running a hospital. Due to the financial difficulties, the payment of dues in the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act fell in arrears during the period from 2003 to 2006. Ultimately Exts. P8 to P12 orders under Section 7A of the Act have been served on the company demanding contributions. Subsequently the control of the company vested with the present directors who have filed this writ petition. They submit that all dues covered by Exts.P8 to P12, have been remitted. However, the petitioner now realises that the persons who were in charge earlier had filed Ext.P13 review petition under Section 7B against Ext.P8 order. According to them they have not received any order on the same. They would submit that the assessments made as per Exts.P8 to P12 do not tally with the Form 12 A, Form 3A and Form 6A returns submitted by the petitioner. They therefore seriously dispute the correctness of the computation of contributions payable by them. Now they have been served with Exts. P17 and P18 orders directing payment of damages also for delay in remittance. The petitioner seeks reconsideration of Exts.P8 to P12 and W.P.(C).No. 5390 OF 2008 2 Exts.P17 and P18. Originally, I directed the Counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation to produce evidence to show that 7B order dated 6.10.2005 has been served on the petitioner, or the predecessor of the petitioner. Although no acknowledgment has been produced in respect of that order, they have produced a letter dated 5/11/2005 issued by the petitioner quoting the letter dated 13/10/2005 which is stated to be the order under Section 7B. They therefore contend that the order was served on the petitioner. But it does not appear from that letter that the petitioner was heard before that order was passed. Although there is considerable delay in the matter of challenging the orders, since what is raised before me is only the question of mistake in calculation, I feel that the first respondent should have a second look into the correctness of the calculation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the a direction to the 1st respondent to recompute the amounts payable by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till orders are passed on the issue the recovery of damages shall be kept in abeyance. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-