IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16078 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PROF.STANLO JOHNES, S/O JOHNSON, HONOURARY MANAGER, SAMUEL LMS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHERUVARAKKANAM, PARASSALA, TVM BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TVM. ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).16078/2009 ....................... Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the Honorary Manager of an unaided Higher Secondary School forming part of the Corporate Educational Agency of South Kerala Diocese of Church of India. School was sought to be brought under the coverage of EPF & MP Act, 1952, and accordingly, respondent herein proceeded to pass Ext.P3 order. Petitioner was heard before the said order was passed. Petitioner sought for a review of Ext.P3 under Section 7B of the Act. Application for review was also dismissed as per Ext.P5. I take note of the fact that Ext.P3 order is dated 2.1.2007 and Ext.P5 order is dated 27.7.2007. Thereafter, steps have been taken to enforce compliance with Exts.P3 and P4 and hence the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the petitioner did not challenge Ext.P3 order in a statutory appeal before the appellate Tribunal and is W.P.(C).16078/2009 2 disentitled from invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am inclined to accept this submission. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court more than two years after the order is passed under Section 7B of the Act. There is no explanation for the delay nor is there any explanation for the petitioner not availing the statutory remedy. I am not inclined to consider the petitioner's contentions on merits. I therefore, decline jurisdiction on the ground of the petitioner not availing the statutory appeallate remedy and not approaching this Court within time. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs