MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTEDN BY ITS SECRETARY, R. RAHESHKUMAR MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA - 690101 Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mavelikkara Municipality is the petitioner in this writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner is that the second respondent who is the authority under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short) has passed Ext.P3 assessment order without hearing the petitioner. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the case. It is also contended that as per the statute the petitioner had time till 7-4-2012 to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. However, without even waiting for the expiry of the appeal period, on 13-3-2012 the second respondent issued Ext.P4 order under Section 8F of the Act demanding payment of the amount assessed and intimating that the same would be recovered from the bank account of the petitioner in the event of non-payment. Accordingly, the amount has been recovered, it is submitted. The counsel for the petitioner contends that, the impugned action of the respondents is illegal and liable to be set aside. I have also heard Adv. A. Rajasimhan who appears for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.

(2.) It is to be noticed that Ext.P3 assessment order is dated 5-1-2012. The petitioner had an appellate remedy of challenging the same before the Tribunal. However, for reasons best known to the petitioner, no appeal was filed challenging Ext.P3. The petitioner also had the remedy of challenging Ext.P3 by filing a review petition under Section 7B of the Act. The petitioner also has not chosen to file such a review petition. Therefore, Ext.P3 has become final. This writ petition is filed on 20-6-2012, long after Ext.P3 has become final.

(3.) Though the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not heard before passing Ext.P3 order, it is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition itself that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to present its case on 2-11-2011 by issuing Ext.P1 notice. Accordingly the petitioner's representative had appeared before the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was then directed to produce the wages register, attendance register, cash book etc. by the second respondent.