IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 41 of 2010(E)
1. MOHAMMED NOUFAL, MANAGING PARTNER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
... Respondent
2. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.41 & 42 of 2010
----------------------------
Dated 5th January, 2010
JUDGMENT
In these writ petitions filed by the same petitioner,
Ext.P1 inspection report prepared by the second respondent is under
challenge. The petitioner contends that the second respondent has no
power to demand payment of contribution to the Employees’ Provident
Fund and that in the absence of a determination made under Section
7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952, Ext.P1 cannot be enforced.
2. Sri.V.V.Suresh, the learned standing counsel appearing
for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization submits that Ext.P1 is
only an inspection report and intimation to the petitioner that he is
bound to comply with the provisions of the Employees’ Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and that if the petitioner
does not comply with Ext.P1, the Employees’ Provident Fund
Organization can only resort to proceedings under section 7A of the
said Act.
3. In the light of the said submission, these writ petitions
are disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner does not comply
WP(C).Nos. 41 & 42 of 2010 2
with the demand made in Ext.P1 inspection report, it will be open to
the first respondent to issue appropriate proceedings under section 7A
of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 in accordance with law.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS