Credence Hospital vs The Asst.Provident Fund … on 3 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26396 of 2008(P)


1. CREDENCE HOSPITAL,REPRESENTED BY ITS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :03/10/2008

 O R D E R
                            V.GIRI,J.
                      -------------------------
                  W.P ( C) No.26396 of 2008
                     --------------------------
              Dated this the 3rd October, 2008

                       J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is an establishment covered under the

Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, 1952. By Exhibit-P1 order, the respondent herein

assessed the contribution payable by the petitioner from

January, 2006 to May, 2007. Amount was remitted by the

petitioner, as evidenced by Exhibit-P2. Apparently, it was

later realised that an amount of Rs.1,29,049/- stated to be

the contribution payable in respect of certain contract

workers has actually been remitted by the contractor.

Accordingly, petitioner filed Exhibit-P3 review petition

essentially raising the said contention. Certain other

aspects were also highlighted in Exhibit-P3 review

petition. Exhibit-P4 certificate evidencing the remittance

made by the Contractor is referred to in Exhibit-P3.

Exhibit-P3- review petition was dismissed under Exhibit-

P6 order and the same has been challenged in this writ

petition.

W.P ( C) No.26396 of 2008
2

2. I heard Sri.E.K. Nandakumar, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Smt.T.N.Girija, learned standing

counsel for the respondent.

3. I do not think it is necessary to go into the merits

of the contentions raised in the review petition for the

reason that I find that the respondent has not given any

reason whatsoever in dismissing Exhibit-P3 review petition.

The order is cryptic and does not reveal an application of

mind on the part of the statutory authority.

Accordingly, Exhibit-P6 is quashed and the

respondent is directed to reconsider Exhibit-P3 review

petition and pass a fresh order after hearing the

petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent should

particularly consider the contentions of the petitioner that a

portion of the amount which has been assessed as

contribution under Exhibit-P1 order has actually been

remitted by the contractor.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No.26396 of 2008
3

W.P ( C) No.26396 of 2008
4