High Court Kerala High Court

K.A.Sayed vs The Regional Provident Fund on 29 November, 2006

Kerala High Court
K.A.Sayed vs The Regional Provident Fund on 29 November, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 8572 of 2002(U)


1. K.A.SAYED,KALLUMADAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.M.JOHN,MALICAKAL HOUSE,C.M.S.QUARTERS,
3. N.M.VARGHESE,NJATTUTHOTTIYIL HOUSE,
4. C.K.AMMINI,CHIRAPURATHU HOUSE,
5. C.P.PATHU,CHOOLAKUZHY HOUSE,BRAHMAPURAM
6. P.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,SANTHI NIVAS,
7. A.M.JOSEPH,VAYALATIL VEDU,PUTHENKURISU
8. D.D.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,KANIANCHERRY,
9. KRISHHNAN THANKAPPAN,MAMPUZHA
10. RAMESAN K.A.,KADAMBRARAYIL HOUSE,
11. SUKUMARAN K.M.,CHUNGATHU HOUSE,
12. P.P.YOHANNAN,PULIKAYATHU HOUSE,
13. T.R.APPUKUTAQN,THYPARAMBIL HOUSE,
14. M.K.AMMINI,MADAPPILLIL VEEDU,
15. M.RAJENDRAN,THATAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
16. C.P.BABU,CHARUMUTTATHU HOUSE,
17. SREDHARAN PILLAI.C.,ULLADIPURATHU VEEDU
18. K.V.SIVAN,KALAMASSERIL HOUSE,
19. MADHU.C.S.,CHUNKATHU HOUSE,
20. N.GOPINATRHA PANICKER,PUTHENTHARAYIL,
21. M.M.HASSAN,MARIPPURAMPIL HOUSE,SOUTH
22. P.P.GOPI,"NIRMAL",NADACKAVU P.O.,
23. ELIYAS M.K.,MURULIYIL VEEDU,KARIMUKAL,
24. ROY.K.D.,KATTANCHERRY VEEDU,
25. K.V.ANTONY,KANDAPPASSERRY HOUSE,
26. K.G.MOHANAN,MANAPPILLY HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
                       ...       Respondent

2. F.A.C.T.REPRESENTED BY ITS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :29/11/2006

 O R D E R
                             KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

                  ----------------------------------------------

                         O.P. No. 8572 of  2002

                  ----------------------------------------------

                    Dated 29th    November,  2006.


                               J U D G M E N T

The challenge is on Ext.P1 order passed by the first

respondent under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Since the petitioners

have an effective remedy of appeal under Section 7-I of the Act,

this Court at this stage need not go into the disputed questions of

fact involved in the case, as rightly contended by the second

respondent. Therefore, without prejudice to the liberty to the

petitioners to approach the Tribunal, this writ petition is

dismissed.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

———————————————-

O.P.No. 8572 of 2002 (U)

———————————————-

J U D G M E N T

Dated 29th November, 2006.