IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 245 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2945/2009 Dated 07/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- MANAGER, GURUJYOTHI MODEL SCHOOL, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SING (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KERALA, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 7TH FLOOR, SKYLARK BUILDING, NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI. 3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 3 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 & 3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.245 OF 2010 IN W.A.No.2945 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner seeks review of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench dismissing his appeal filed against the decision of the learned single Judge affirming statutory proceedings under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2.The youth movement of SNDP Yogam at Nedungolam is stated to have decided in 1987 to form a trust and hand over Sree Narayana Nursery School which was started by it. Accordingly, Sree Narayana Charitable Trust was formed and the school was handed over to that trust. The petitioner was the founder secretary of that trust. The school was later RP.245/10 2 renamed by the trust as Sree Narayana Vidha Bhavan. That trust became the subject matter of O.S.86/93 before the District Court, Kollam. Ultimately, that suit was dismissed, though, in the interregnum, there was a party receiver appointed by that court. After the dismissal of the suit in 1995, the school was handed over with its assets and liabilities to “Teachers Consortium”. It is stated that an agreement was entered into in that regard between the secretary of the trust and the secretary of the Sree Narayana Vidya Bhavan Teachers' Consortium. According to the petitioner, in the meanwhile, a charitable society was registered and Gurujyothi Model School was started by that society. Ext.P13 along with the writ petition shows that the said society Sree Narayana Charitable and Educational Society was registered with number Q 583/94 in 1994. 3.On the basis of the statutory proceedings under the EPF & MP Act, the department concluded that Gurujyothi Model School is nothing but the continuation of Sree Narayana Vidya Bhavan RP.245/10 3 and the petitioner was found to be in possession of the documents relating to the establishments. In statutory proceedings, it was therefore concluded that Gurujyothi Model School is the continuation of Sree Narayana Vidya Bhavan and Gurujyothi Model School cannot make an infancy claim in relation to coverage under the EPF & MP Act. Though an application for review under Section 7B was filed against the proceedings under Section 7A, the said review petition was dismissed stating that no grounds are shown. This decision on the review petition was criticised as cryptic in as much as it does not disclose sufficient reason and also on the ground that it was issued without hearing the review petitioner. Learned party in person who is an advocate further points out that as a matter of fact, when the statutory proceedings under Section 7A was taken in 1995, Sree Narayana Vidya Bhavan was run by the Teachers' Consortium and that Teachers' Consortium was not given any notice of proceedings under Section 7A. RP.245/10 4 4.The appeal carried by the petitioner to the appellate tribunal against the order under Section 7A was dismissed. In the writ petition, learned single Judge affirmed the findings of facts arrived at by that statutory authority. It is not in dispute that the statutory authority had reached at the records of Sree Narayana Vidya Bhavan and also Gurujyothi Model School from the custody of the petitioner. The findings of facts were, thus, on the basis of materials. We, as of now, are not concerned with the correctness of those findings because we have in hand only a review petition against the judgment in a writ appeal. 5.With the aforesaid, learned party in person argued that the judgment of the Division Bench proceeds as if there was entrustment of the Gurujyothi Model School back to the Consortium and this finding in the impugned judgment is totally contrary even to the case of the department. The use of the word 'entrustment' in the judgment in the writ appeal, in our view, does not really matter. This is for the reason that the RP.245/10 5 establishment had found that Gurujyothi Model School is nothing but a continuation of Sree Narayana Vidya Bhavan. Such finding of fact had obtained the approval of the learned single Judge and the writ appeal was also dismissed. 6.With the aforesaid, we notice that the petitioner could not have made any grievance against the revisional order under Section 7B because the authority which could have considered the review could not have done anything beyond what the appellate tribunal had done. When a proceedings under Section 7A and the resultant order merges in the decision of the appellate tribunal, which is the superior authority, inferior authority would not have the jurisdiction to sit in review on its own earlier decision, notwithstanding the fact that the review petition was filed before the filing of the appeal to the appellate tribunal. In fact, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition. That was at a point of time when the Section 7B review application was dismissed. Therefore, this court quite rightly relegated the petitioner to his available remedy by way RP.245/10 6 of appeal to the appellate tribunal. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the judgment in the writ appeal and there is no ground for review. The review petition fails. At this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to preserve his right to file a writ petition against Ext.P9 order passed in review. For the aforesaid reasons, that request also fails. In the result, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.30/06.