IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4811 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- EXTOLUTION SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, TECHNO PARK CLUB, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JOE WINSTON. BY ADV. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIIONER, EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.T.N.GIRIJA, SC FOR THE RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4811 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Ext.P1 is an order passed by the respondent exercising his powers under Section 7A of the Act. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioner filed Ext.P2, invoking the power of review conferred under Section 7B of the Act on the respondent. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P2. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P3, the respondent has invoked his power under Section 8F of the Act and attached the Bank account. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, during pendency of Ext.P2, coercive action taken by Ext.P3 is premature. But, however, the learned standing counsel for the respondent points out that Ext.P2 is not in the Form as prescribed in paragraph 79A of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and therefore there is no valid application under Section 7B. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P2, I also find that the same is not in the Form as prescribed in the Scheme. However, at this stage, it is WP(C) No.4811/2009 -2- not possible for the petitioner to seek review under Section 7B of the Act, in view of the time limit of 45 days prescribed in the Act itself, for preferring such an application. Therefore, if Ext.P2 is not considered, the petitioner will be loosing the remedy of review. 4. However, having regard to the fact that Ext.P2 is not in proper form, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to make an application as prescribed in the Form referred to above as a supplementary one to Ext.P2. This the petitioner shall do within 10 days from today. Subject to the filing of an application as above, it is directed that all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 issued under Section 8F of the Act will be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on Ext.P2 and on the supplementary application to be filed. Needless to say that before final orders are passed, the petitioner also be given an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg