(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kochi, issued at Ext. P7. Admittedly, the petitioner, had been engaging its members, as per contract entered into with other establishments, one of which is produced at Ext. P1. The petitioner had been deducting provident fund contributions and paying the same to the respondent Organisation. While so, the petitioner discontinued the contributions and hence an enquiry under 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'the EPF Act') was initiated. The petitioner was issued with notice, and though initially the notice could not be served, subsequently, it was acknowledged and there was appearance on behalf of the Society. Repeated adjournments were sought for and no documents were produced by the petitioner before the enquiry officer.
(2.) The petitioner merely filed Ext. P4 wherein, it was stated that amounts were remitted for the year 2010-11 and a remittance was made as on 18/10/2012 also, which would satisfy the entire dues. No objections to the notice was filed and in such circumstance, the enquiry officer under the EPF Act issued Ext. P7 proceedings, which was despatched on 18/07/2013. The petitioner does not have a contention that the petitioner did not receive Ext. P7 proceedings. The petitioner did absolutely nothing to challenge the same, especially when an appeal was provided under Section 7-I of the EPF Act.
(3.) The petitioner also did not pay off the contribution as indicated in Ext. P7. It was in such circumstance that penal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and notice issued to show-cause as to why a warrant of arrest should not be issued. The same is challenged before this Court. It goes without saying that, by the time the writ petition was filed, the period of limitation for filing an appeal was over.