IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34082 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANIMEKHALA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.SAVITHRI, PROPRIETORIX, M/S.THANAL PLACEMENT SERVICE & REAL ESTATE & OTHER ACTIVITIES, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, GAURI NAGAR, PONGANMOODU, CHENTHY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - II, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VARGHESE DANIEL, THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. K.G.VINOD, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT. T.N. GIRIJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 34082 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the proprietrix of an establishment, which supplies home nurses and domestic helpers to customers. By Ext. P5 order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the 3rd respondent directed coverage of the establishment under the Act. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7B for review of the said order as directed in Ext. P8 judgment of this Court. By Ext. P10 order, that 7B application was rejected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P10 order on the ground that the application under Section 7B ought to have been considered by the officer superior to the person who passed the order under Section 7A, which has not been done. The petitioner relies on Ext. P11 circular issued by the Provident Fund Organisation in this regard. She also submits that on merits also, the petitioner's establishment is not liable to be covered under the Act. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation also. 3. Section 7B specifically stipulates that an application for review under that Section has to be filed before the officer who passed the order under Section 7A. That being so, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. Insofar as the contentions on merits of the order impugned are concerned, the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal as provided under clause (7) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/