1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2603 OF 2007 Business India & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Counsel a/w. Amin Kherada for Petitioners. Mr.Suresh Kumar for respondents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 3. Mr.Suresh Kumar waives notice for both the Respondents. 4. As short question is involved, Petition is proceeded for final disposal forthwith by consent and in particular, having regard to the observations made in that behalf in the Order dated 20th February, 2008. 2 5. Although by this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the Order dated 20th November, 2006 at page-81 passed in the first instance by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation as well as dated 14th February, 2007 at page 98 and dated 8th May, 2007 at page 100, latter two orders passed on the Applications purported to be Review Applications preferred on behalf of the Petitioners. However, the Petitioners would be content, if the Order passed on Review Petition was to be set aside and the Review Petition is restored to the file to its original number, to be heard on its own merits in accordance with the law by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation. The grounds on which the Petitioners have assailed the Order passed on the Review Petition are that, although the Petitioners had statutory remedy of review, the Authority has non-suited the Petitioners on specious reasoning that the Review Application filed by Shri Leon M. Samuel, Advocate could not be proceeded further, as he was not an employer nor he had represented the case of establishment in remand proceedings and also that the advocate has not established that he is an aggrieved party. These reasons have been recorded on the erroneous assumption that the Advocate was 3 challenging the Order passed on 20th November, 2006 himself. When in fact, the said Review Application was filed by the said Advocate for and on behalf of the Petitioners. That position was clarified by the Petitioners by sending communication dated 17th February, 2007 at page 99. Inspite of this clarification, the lower authority has maintained the Order of rejection of Review Petition, as is communicated to the Petitioners vide letter dated 8th May, 2007 at page 100. In my opinion, the approach of the Authority is manifestly wrong. Atleast after the Petitioners had clarified the position that the Review Application was filed by the Advocate on their behalf, the Lower Authority had no reason to entertain any doubt about the locus of the Advocate to pursue the remedy of Review Application. On the other hand, the Authority ought to have decided the said Review Application on its own merits in accordance with the law being a statutory remedy available to the Petitioner. 6. I have purposely not adverted to the other aspects of the matter, as any observation made in that behalf would affect the merits of the controversy one way or the other. 4 7. Accordingly, this Petition succeeds. The Order passed by the Review Authority at pages 98 and 100 dated 14th February, 2008 and 8th May, 2007 respectively, are set aside and instead the Review Application preferred on behalf of the Petitioner is restored to file to its original number, to be decided by the Authority on its own merit in accordance with the law. All questions in that behalf are left open. 8. The Authority shall decide the said Review Application as expeditiously as possible preferably by end of July, 2008. 9. It is made clear that in the event, the order on Review Application is adverse to the Petitioners, the Petitioners will be free to challenge the Order passed on the Review Application as well as first Order passed by the Authority dated 20th November, 2006 in the proposed Writ Petition. 10. Petition disposed off on the above terms. No order as to cost. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)