IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29926 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MARY MATHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PALLYODE, DALMUGHOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAI RMAN R. MURUGAN, S/O.LATE P.RATNASWAMY, MARYMATHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, PALLIYODE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ASG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SC SMT.T.N.GIRIJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29926/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P9 orders passed by the second respondent under the EPF Act. Admittedly, Ext.P5 order was an ex parte order. Apparently, representative of the petitioner did not appear before the Assessing Authority because there was a change in the Management in the petitioner- College. Petitioner filed Ext.P8 application for setting aside the ex parte order. Same has been dismissed under Ext.P9. 2. Normally I would have relegated the petitioner for an alternate remedy under the EPF act. But I find on a reading of Ext.P9 that there was non consideration of the contentions taken up by the petitioner for the reasons afforded in Ext.P8, except in the last paragraph. The entirety of Ext.P9 is a reproduction of Ext.P8 and this does not seem to be a proper exercise of jurisdiction. W.P.(C).29926/2008 2 3. In the circumstances, Ext.P9 is set aside. Second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs