Disposed

Manimekhala v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC21 May 2009WP(C)/8688/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging an order under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act. The court allowed the petitioner to file a review within 30 days and stayed enforcement of the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Enforcement of the impugned orders under Section 7A was kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the review petition, which is permitted for an additional 30 days.

Manimekhala Vs the Regional Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 8688 of 2009(E) -------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶6

MANIMEKHALA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.SAVITHRI PROPRIETORIX, M/S.THANAL PLACEMENT SERVICE & REAL ESTATE & OTHER ACTIVITIES, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, GAURI NAGER, PONGANMOODU, CHENTHY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

SRI.B.CHANDRA LAL

RESPONDENT(S):

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

K.G.VINOD, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 TO 3

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.GIRI, J

¶19

W.P.(C).8688/2009

¶20

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2009

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, in respect of an establishment 'Thanal Placement Service & Real Estate and other activities. According to the petitioner, she does not employ any person. She only makes available persons for different domestic services in different houses. This crucial aspect has not been correctly understood by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.

¶23

I am not inclined to consider the contentions as against Ext.P11. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a provision for review of an order in the nature of Exts.P11 and P12 under Section 7B of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the period for filing

¶24

W.P.(C).8688/2009

¶25

¶26

a review is over. But in circumstances where the writ petition has been filed on 17.3.2009, I am of the view that if the petitioner files a review within 30 days, same shall be treated as within time and appropriate orders shall be passed within three months thereafter. Enforcement of Exts.P11 and P12 shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed on the review petition.

¶27

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

V.GIRI, Judge

¶29

mrcs

Manimekhala v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimekhala v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athira V.N. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Nazar A.M. Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary

Sindhu Vs Pankajarajan

M.K.Sahadevan Vs the Registrar of Societies

Vellangottu Korachan Vs District Collector Malappuram, Civil