IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 748 of 2009(D)
1. MNAGER, GURUJYOTHI MODEL SCHOOL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
... Respondent
2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
For Petitioner :SRI.G.BHAGAVATH SINGH(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/09/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
R.P.No.748/09 in OP.No.31954/00 &
R.P.No.750/09 in OP.No.22711/00
------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009.
O R D E R
By filing these review petitions, the petitioners herein
are seeking to have the judgment dated 25.5.2009
dismissing the Original Petitions reviewed.
2. By that judgment this court upheld the order
passed by respondents 1 and 2, ordering coverage of
establishment and the rejection of the appeal filed by the
petitioners. By the aforesaid two orders the statutory
authorities concurrently took the view that irrespective of
the change of hands, the establishment remains the same
and therefore liable for coverage under the Act. The
contention that the employees strength was below the
statutory minimum of 20 was also overruled referring to the
documents available to the Enquiry Officer during the
course of the equiry held under Section 7A of the
RPNo.748/09 & anor. 2
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952. The original Petitions filed challenging the aforesaid
proceedings were dismissed by a common judgment rendered
by this court on 25.5.2009 affirming both the aforesaid
findings. It is seeking review of the aforesaid judgment the
present Review Petitions have been filed.
3. The contention raised is that while rendering the
judgment this court did not advert to Exts.P2 and P3, the
interim order passed by the civil court in O.S.No.86/93 and
the judgment dismissing the suit. A reference to the order
passed by the Appellate Tribunal shows that these
proceedings have been duly adverted to by the Appellate
Tribunal and the Tribunal has taken note of that fact, the suit
was ultimately dismissed. Even apart from that, the fact that a
suit was filed and an interim order was obtained has no impact
on the conclusion arrived at by the respective authorities, that
irrespective of the change of hands the establishment and the
employees remained the same. Therefore the fact that these
RPNo.748/09 & anor. 3
two documents were not adverted to in the judgment does not
make out a case of error apparent on the face of record
warranting review of the judgment.
Review Petitions therefore are devoid of merit and are
dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/