Manimekhala vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 4 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 317 of 2010()


1. MANIMEKHALA, AGED 50 YEARS,D/O.SAVITHRI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

3. THE ASSISTANT PR0VIDENT FUND

4. VARGHESE DANIAL, THE ASSITANT PROVIDENT

5. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,

6. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

7. K.G.VINOD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :04/03/2010

 O R D E R
                       P.R. RAMAN, Ag. C.J. &
                 C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                 --------------------------------------------
                        W. A. No. 317 OF 2010
                 --------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

Raman, Ag. C. J.

Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single

Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Earlier she

approached this Court challenging the order of the Provident Fund

Commissioner passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident

Fund Act. This Court by judgment dated 21.5.2009 disposed of the

Writ Petition giving an opportunity to the appellant to file review

petition within 30 days and directed the authority to pass appropriate

orders. Appellant thereafter filed review petition which is considered

by the same Officer, who disposed of the appellant’s application. The

appellant has challenged the said order again before this Court in the

Writ Petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The

main argument of counsel for the appellant is that when review petition

is filed, the same should be considered by a superior officer. Review

means review of the order or judgment passed by the Officer who heard

2

the appellant’s application. Even the statute prescribes that review

petition should be heard by the same officer who disposed of the

appellant’s application. Therefore the learned single Judge rightly

dismissed the Writ Petition. The remedy, if any, for the appellant is to

file statutory appeal before the appellate authority and leaving that

open, we dismiss the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks one month’s time for

filing appeal. In view of the pendency of the matter before this Court,

we direct that in case appeal is filed within one month from today

before the statutory authority, the same will be treated as one filed in

time and will be considered in accordance with law.

(P.R. RAMAN)
Ag. Chief Justice

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

kk

3