IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19565 of 2008(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- C. SANTHAMMA, KARTHIKA UTHRAM BUILDING, NO.PP XII/1387, PUNNAMOODU, BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE NADA, PALLICHAL.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-01. BY ADV. SRI.D.S.SREEKUMARAN SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SRI.M.JAYAPRASAD RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1 & 2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.19565 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, whereby he has decided that the petitioner's establishment is liable to be covered under the Act and directed the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Act and scheme. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is not liable to be covered for want of sufficient number of employees for such coverage. She disputes the Mahazar prepared by the Enforcement Officers wherein names of 28 persons have been included as employees of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, all of them are not employees of the petitioner. She also submits that the details and addresses of the persons are not mentioned in the Mahazar except their names. The petitioner also raises a specific contention that Ext.P7 order has been passed by one of the enforcement officers who had conducted the inspection of the petitioner's premises on his W.P(C)No.19565 of 2008 - 2 - promotion as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and passed Ext.P8 Mahazar,which was the basis for the decision in Ext.P7. According to the petitioner the 2nd respondent has acted as a judge in his own cause, in so far as he prepared Ext.P8 Mahazar and passed Ext.P7 order. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation on the basis of written instructions received by him submits as follows: “The allegation that the person who adjudicated the matter and the person who drew the Mahazar is one and the same is levelled with a motive of diverting the attention from the original facts to unimportant technical procedures. The inquiry Officer is a quasi - judicial authority and as such inquiry shall deemed to be a judicial proceedings in all sense. His multifunctional role as APFC or other position he was holding or any other job he had executed by virtue o his Official position prior to this enquiry must not had any bearing on the inquiry. The inquiry was solely depend on the documentary evidence or records produced before him where decisions were not taken leasurely but truly, judiciously, objectively and impartially. The habitual practice of the Employer to file various Writ petition before the Hon'ble Court for escaping from the statutory provisions of the Society Security Act and for denying the Labour benefits of the poor class of employees may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court and pray for the dismissal of the petition at the first hearing itself allowing the statutory Organisation of E.P.F.O to secure prompt compliances from the petitioner establishment and to allow the Legal Costs for the Respondent E.P.F.O.” W.P(C)No.19565 of 2008 - 3 - 4. I am of opinion that the stand of the 2nd respondent is totally against the basic principles of natural justice. A person cannot be a judge in his own cause. Here, admittedly the person who has passed Ext.P7 order conducted the inspection and is a signatory to Ext.P8 Mahazar. That being so he cannot have validly passed Ext.P7 order on the basis of the Mahazar prepared by himself. Therefore, Ext.P7 is in violation to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, Ext.P7 is quashed. It would be open to the 1st respondent to either decide the matter himself afresh or authorise another Competent Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to pass fresh orders under Section 7A after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner which shall include opportunity to adduce the evidence also. The writ petition is allowed as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs