IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 497 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14635/2010 Dated 08/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/1st RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------- EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, CHALAKUZHY BUILDING, C.M.S.COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001, REP. BY THE ASST.P.F. COMMISSIONER, K.B.LALITHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.GREEN BERG RESORTS PVT.LTD., NADUKANI, KULAMAVU P.O., IDUKKI DIST - 685 601. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINAR, 4TH FLOOR, CORE - II, LAXMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SMT. S.K.DEVI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jj K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ R.P.NO: 497 OF 2011 IN W.P(C) NO:14635 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th August, 2011. O R D E R The Employees Provident Fund Organization has filed this review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 8-6-2010 passed in W.P(C) 14635/2010. As per the judgment sought to be reviewed, the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent in the writ petition has been issued the following direction:- “ This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to keep in abeyance all further action based on or pursuant to Ext.P6 notice to determine the provident fund contributions payable by the petitioner until Ext.P5 restoration application is finally disposed of by the second respondent.” 2. The complaint of the petitioner herein is that the second respondent – Tribunal has not disposed of the matter finally, till date. Therefore, it is contended that an appropriate time frame is necessary to be stipulated for completion of the proceedings by the Tribunal. RP 497/2011 in WP(C)14635/2010 2 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by the counsel for the first respondent. According to the counsel, no grounds have been made out by the petitioner to show any error apparent on the face of record or to make out some other sufficient reason to justify a review as sought for. 4. It is worth noticing that the writ petition was filed by the first respondent challenging coercive action initiated by the petitioner against him, ignoring the fact that proceedings were pending consideration of the second respondent in an application filed by the petitioner. After considering the various aspects of the matter, the coercive proceedings were restrained by the judgment sought to be reviewed till proceedings before the second respondent – Tribunal are completed. The petitioner was only one of the respondents in the writ petition. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the pendency of the proceedings before the second respondent. In fact there is no allegation to the said effect in the review petition also. It has also not been shown that there is any error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient RP 497/2011 in WP(C)14635/2010 3 reason justifying a review of the judgment. I do not find any grounds to admit this review petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the second respondent – Tribunal for an early hearing of the matter. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj RP 497/2011 in WP(C)14635/2010 4