IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18218 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.K. SHAJI, PROPRIETOR, MAROTTIKKAL COIR WORKS, MANAPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONR, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. 2. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND DISTRICT OFFICE, NEAR STONE BRIDGE, ALLEPPEY. BY SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 18218/2010-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/02/2007 ISUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/04/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/05/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05/06/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT, SWORN ON 16/06/2007 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06/01/2010. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 14/01/2010. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/05/2010. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/05/2010. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/05/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/02/2007. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 18218 OF 2010 B ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2010. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the demand made by the first respondent covering three separate establishments. According to the petitioner, he is the proprietor of Messrs. Marottickal Coir Works which is a small scale industry having an SSI registration. The father of the petitioner is the proprietor of Messrs. Marottickal Industries which is a separate establishment. The wife of the petitioner is the proprietress of Messrs. Thiruvonam Industries which is a totally different establishment. According to the petitioner, all the establishments are independent and separate and are managed by the different persons mentioned above. Therefore, the petitioner has disputed the action of the employees provident fund authorities in clubbing all the three establishments together for the purpose of coverage under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short). According to the petitioner though he had been requesting for an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act to be conducted for the purpose of determining the above issue, no such enquiry has been conducted. WPC 18218/2010 2 2. A statement has been filed by the standing counsel on behalf of the first respondent. In paragraph 7 of the said statement it has been stated that the first respondent has no objection to conduct an enquiry as provided under Section 7A(1)(a) of the Act to decide the applicability of the Act to the establishments concerned. 3. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act to determine the issue as to whether the three establishments are liable to be clubbed together for the purpose of coverage under the provisions of the Act. Only after such an enquiry, the amounts due can be quantified and demanded. Needless to mention that the petitioner and other interested persons shall be heard. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 18218/2010 3