IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7351 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LTD., ASAN SQUARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CORE-2, 4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 092. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 3. ASSISTANT REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, EPF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7353 OF 2011 & WPC NO. 7386 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 7351, 7353 & 7386 OF 2011 ============================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in these writ petitions is a Company established under the provisions of the Companies Act engaged in broadcasting visual media. The establishment is one covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 orders in these writ petitions, which are passed by the 3rd respondent exercising his powers under Section 14B of the Act, levying damages on the petitioner on the allegation that it paid the EPF dues belatedly. Appeals were filed before the Tribunal, which rejected the appeals by Ext.P4 orders. These orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. 3. Although various contentions have been raised by the petitioners impugning Exts.P1 and P4 and the standing counsel for the respondents attempted to justify these orders, what is noticed is, before Ext.P1 orders were passed, petitioner was WPC Nos. 7351, 7353 & 7386 OF 2011 :2 : issued notice, petitioner filed its reply and a hearing was scheduled on 15/12/2006. On 15/12/2006 due to certain unavoidable inconveniences, petitioner sought an adjournment by letter dated 8/12/2006. However, refusing the adjournment and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent concluded the proceedings on 15/12/2006 itself and passed Ext.P1 orders on 19/12/206. 4. In my view, there is absolutely no justification for such an unreasonable haste that was shown by the 1st respondent. Therefore, Ext.P1 orders in these writ petitions are liable to be quashed only for the ground that these orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice for the reason that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. For this reason and without examining anything on the merits, I quash Ext.P1 orders. Consequently Ext.P4 orders will also stand quashed. 5. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue notice, hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp