IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 OP.No. 33062 of 2000(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.RAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD., SIDHARTH BUILDING, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE (TAXATION & FINANCE) SRI.D.D. SINGH. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 7TH FLOOR, 60, SKYLARK BUILDING, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 019. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA, SC,P.F.ORGSN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 33062 of 2000(J) ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.56456/2000 IN O.P. NO. 33062/2000 DISMISSED 02/06/2010. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/03/2000 IN O.P. NO. 30310/1999 OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/07/2000 IN W.A. NO. 1548/2000 OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.A. NO. 1548/2000 OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/07/2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST ORDER DATED 27/06/2000 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST ORDER DATED 18/07/2000 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST ORDER DATED 25/07/2000 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST ORDER DATED 10/08/2000 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(b): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/02/2000 FROM THE PETITIONER. OP.No. 33062 of 2000(J) EXT.P11(c): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(d): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/03/2000 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11(e): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(f): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/02/2000 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11(g): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(h): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/03/2000 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/11/2000 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2A: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF CONTRIBUTION DUE TO THE FUND. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- O.P.No.33062 of 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2010 JUDGEMENT Exhibits.P4 to P7 orders issued by the second respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram levying damages under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Ext.P14 appellate order passed by the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal affirming the said orders, are under challenge in this original petition. 2. Exts.P4 to P7 orders were passed after Ext.P11(a) and similar notices dated 14.2.2000 were issued to the petitioner. By the said notices in three of the cases, the petitioner was called upon to be present before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram at 11.30 a.m. on 2.3.2000 and on 24.3.2000 in the fourth case. The petitioner states that an application was sent by post to the said authority requesting for an adjournment of the enquiry by a period of one month and that notwithstanding the said request, Exts.P4 to P7 orders issued in June, July and August, 2000 were served on them. The petitioner submits that though Exts.P8 to P11 appeals were filed before the fourth respondent Tribunal challenging Exts.P4 to P7 orders, the appeals were rejected by Ext.P14 common order. O.P.No.33062/2000 2 3. Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted with reference to Exts.P4 to P7 that though the orders bear the dates 27.6.2000, 18.7.2000, 25.7.2000 and 10.8.2000 respectively on the first page thereof, the last page of Exts.P4 to P6 orders would show that the said orders were passed on 2.3.2000 and that the last page of Ext.P7 would show that it was passed on 24.3.2000. The learned counsel submitted that the dates 2.3.2000 and 24.3.2000 have been mentioned in the orders with a view to make it appear that the orders were passed on those days itself. He submitted that from the first page of the impugned orders it is evident that the orders were passed only on 27.6.2000, 18.7.2000, 25.7.2000 and 10.8.2000 respectively and that the second respondent therefore ought to have granted the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, instead of mechanically passing orders four months after the date fixed for hearing, levying damages under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellate authority has brushed aside the said contention by merely stating that the orders were passed on 2.3.2000 and 24.3.2000 and that there was only delay in communicating the said orders. 4. Exts.P4 to P7 bear the date 27.6.2000, 18.7.2000, 25.7.2000 and 10.8.2000 respectively on the first page thereof. O.P.No.33062/2000 3 However, in the last page of Exts.P4 to P6 the date of the order is mentioned as 2.3.2000 and in the last page of Ext.P7, the date of the order is mentioned as 24.3.2000. Three of the cases were posted before the second respondent for enquiry on 2.3.2000 and the last one on 24.3.2000. From the dates mentioned in the first page of the respective orders it is evident that the orders were passed only on the said dates and not on the dates mentioned in the last page thereof. The orders disclose that they were passed nearly three months after the dates fixed for hearing, namely 2.3.2000, 24.3.2000. The fact that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned orders were passed is not in dispute. The original authority and the appellate authority have stated that as no request from the petitioner was received, the cases were disposed of on the dates of hearing itself. In my opinion, the said stand cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the orders impugned namely Exts.P4 to P7 bear the dates 27.6.2000, 18.7.2000, 25.7.2000 and 10.8.2000 respectively and not 2.3.2000 and 24.3.3000 thereby disclosing that the orders were issued only in the months of June, July and August, 2000. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the view taken by the fourth respondent Tribunal in Ext.P14 that the orders were passed on the dates on which the cases were posted for hearing and that there was only delay in communicating the orders cannot be sustained. The second O.P.No.33062/2000 4 respondent ought to have in my opinion afforded the petitioner another opportunity to participate in the enquiry before levying damages. If such a course had been adopted, the petitioner would not have moved this Court by filing this original petition challenging the impugned orders on the ground that before the orders were passed, they were not given an opportunity of being heard. In such circumstances, having regard to the fact that the arrears of contribution relating to the relevant period have been paid, I am inclined to afford the petitioner an opportunity to put forward his contentions before the second respondent. I accordingly allow this original petition, quash Exts.P4 to P7 and P14 orders and direct the second respondent to pass fresh orders pursuant to Ext.P11(a) and similar notices, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within four months from today. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS