IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23854 of 2008(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ---------------- NUJUMUDEEN, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, PROPRIETOR, N.N.CASHEW COMPANY, KATTUPUTHUSSERY, PALLICKAL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', PATTOM, P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. BY ADV.SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.23854 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. By Ext.P2 order the petitioner has been assessed to contributions under the Act, in respect of which the petitioner has very serious objections. Therefore, he filed a petition under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, which was also rejected by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner submits that it is, because of the petitioner could not obtain and produce appropriate documents the situation arose. The petitioner now claims that in view of Ext.P4 he can establish that the assessment of contributions is not correct. The petitioner therefore seeks for another chance to satisfy the 2nd respondent about the claim of the petitioner. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Organization stoutly opposes the same. He would contend that orders have been passed strictly in accordance with the law and after passing Section 7B order, there is no provision in the Act W.P(C)No.23854 of 2008 - 2 - to reconsider the matter. According to the Standing Counsel, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. After hearing both sides, in view of Ext.P4, I feel that before relegating the petitioner to the remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent should give a second look of the matter in the light of Ext.P4. For this purpose I quash Exts.P2 and P5. The petitioner shall appear before the 2nd respondent on 8.9.2008 on which date or any other adjourned date, the 2nd respondent shall hear the petitioner. The petitioner shall be ready with all the documents in support of his case on those dates. After hearing, the 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs