IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25805 of 2010(A)
1. M/S.VISHNU CASHEW COMPANY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EMPLOYEESPROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT
For Petitioner :SRI.M.DINESH
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO.25805 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the Proprietor of M/s.Vishnu Cashew
Company covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘EPF Act’ only) filed this
Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the first
respondent directing the second respondent to continue with the enquiry
under Section 7A of the EPF Act to determine the dues in respect of the
petitioner’s establishment. Ext.P3 has been challenged mainly on the
ground of failure to strictly adhere to the procedures prescribed under
paragraph 26-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. It is
contented that the employees were not summoned and examined in terms
of paragraph 26-B of the EPF Scheme, by the first respondent. Obviously,
the petitioner is aggrieved by the finding with respect to the non-
enrollment of 28 employees, who, according to the authorities, employed
by the establishment but were denied the EPF benefits. Earlier, the
petitioner on receipt of notice of enquiry under Section 7A requested for
W.P.(C) NO.25805/2010 2
an enquiry in terms of paragraph 26-B of the EPF scheme. Apparently,
after accepting the request of the petitioner, proceedings pursuant to
issuance of notice under Section 7A of the EPF Act were kept in abeyance
and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated enquiry in terms
of paragraph 26-B of the EPF Scheme. It is in the said proceedings that
the aforementioned finding was made after perusing the records and
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. As per Ext.P3,
the petitioner has to enroll all the 28 identified employees as reported by
the Enforcement Officer in his report dated 17.8.2009 into the Employees’
Provident Fund. It was in the said circumstances that the second
respondent was directed to continue with the enquiry under Section 7A of
the EPF Act and to determine the dues in respect of the petitioner’s
establishment.
2. Evidently, as per Ext.P3, the first respondent directed the
second respondent only to continue with the enquiry under Section 7A of
the EPF Act for which notice was already served on the petitioner and to
determine the dues in respect of the petitioner’s establishment. If the
petitioner is ultimately aggrieved by the order passed on the conclusion of
the enquiry under Section 7A, it will be open to the petitioner to prefer an
W.P.(C) NO.25805/2010 3
appeal against such an order of the competent authority. In other words, in
case of an adverse order in the enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act, it
will leave the petitioner remediless since such an order would be
appealable. Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken any steps to get the
said 28 employees examined in the proceedings in terms of paragraph 26-
B of EPF Scheme. That apart, the said 28 identified employees cannot be
said to be aggrieved by Ext.P3 order. In view of the said position available
in this Writ Petition, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P3 whereby the
first respondent only directed the second respondent to continue with the
enquiry under Section 7A of the Act. In view of the fact that earlier, a
notice under Section 7A has been issued, necessarily it has to attain its
logical conclusion. In fact, that alone has been directed by the first
respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition.
Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.25805/2010 4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
W.P.(C) NO.25805/2010 5