IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1312 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.14195/2000 Dated 05/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT: -------------- P.RAMACHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, GENERAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KANNANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ANR., E.P.F.O., REGIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPT.OF LABOUR & EMPLOYEMENT, NEW DELHI. BY SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, SRI.SUDHI VASUDEVAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1312 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner approached this court challenging Ext.P12 order passed by the first respondent under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The learned single Judge after elaborately adverting to the factual position also, dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal. Before us though several contentions are taken, finally a prayer is made for withdrawing the writ petition with liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 7B of the Act. Though the prayer is stoutly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, having regard to the disputed facts involved in the case, we are of the view that it is in the W.A.No.1312 of 2009 -:2:- interests of justice that an opportunity is given to the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedy as provided under the Act. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn, without prejudice to the liberty to the writ petitioner to pursue his remedy by way of review against Ext.P12. We make it clear that in the process, while considering the application for condonation of delay, the fact that the matter was pending before this court since 2000 will also be taken into consideration by the authority. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge ahg. BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. --------------------------- W.A.No.1312 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 9th July, 2009