IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33685 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.BASHEERKUTTY, S/O.KOCHUVAPPU KUNJU, PROPRIETOR, SHERIN CASHEW COMPANY, PUTHUCHIRA, UMAYANALLOOR.PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', PATTOM PALACE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1-3 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.33685 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a covered establishment and by Exhibit P3 order, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner assessed the contribution due from the petitioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 application for review of Exhibit P3 under Section 7B of the Act. The same was also rejected under Exhibit P7. Petitioner submits that there is total non- application of mind by the authority to the documents produced by the petitioner along with the application for review and therefore, the petitioner sought for review of Exhibit P7 by submitting Exhibit P10 application purportedly under Section 7C of the Act. He seeks a direction to the competent authority to consider Exhibit P10 and for other consequential reliefs. W.P ( C) No.33685 of 2008 2 2. Learned counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner submits that an application in the nature of Exhibit P10 is not maintainable. There is no provision for seeking a review of an order under Section 7B of the Act. Section 7C of the Act deals with determination of escaped contribution and it confers power on the assessing authority to re-determine the amount in the circumstances mentioned therein. An application in the nature of Exhibit P10 is not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at this juncture that some time may be granted to him to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and that recovery proceedings may be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period to approach the appropriate Tribunal and to seek interim order. I find force in the submission. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the proceedings for recovery of amounts pursuant to Exhibits P3 and P7 for a period of three months from today. It is W.P ( C) No.33685 of 2008 3 open to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal challenging Exhibits P3 and P7 orders and seek appropriate interim orders within the said period. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.33685 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.33685 of 2008 5