AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & RESEARCH CENTER ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an establishment covered by the

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel for the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation submits, on instructions, that the petitioner has not preferred the review application in proper form. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the time prescribed for preferring an application for review of Ext.P3 order is over by now.

(3.) It is conceded by the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation that Ext.P4 application has been preferred by the petitioner within the time limit prescribed for preferring a review petition under Section 7B of the Act. In so far as Ext.P4 application has been preferred by the petitioner within the time limit prescribed for preferring an application under Section 7B of the Act, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation cannot take the stand that the request of the petitioner for review of Ext.P3 order cannot be entertained as he has not preferred the application in the prescribed form within the time limit prescribed. According to me, when the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 application, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation should have informed the petitioner the defect in the application and directed the petitioner to prefer an application in the prescribed form as well. In so far as the said course has not been adopted by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 application, treating the same as an application preferred under Section 7B of the Act. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall, in the meanwhile, prefer an application in the proper form also seeking review of Ext.P3 order.