Kerala High Court
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 13 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942
RP.No.909 OF 2020 IN WA. 996/2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 996/2015 dated 24.6.2020 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/2nd RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN, P.B.NO.1806, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 006
BY ADV. DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
1 THE STANDARD FURNITURE
(UNIT OF SUDARSAN TRADING CO.LTD.), CHAKKORATHKULAM,
CALICUT 673 011 REP.BY M.ASHOK KUMAR, MANAGING
DIRECTOR
2 THE REGISTRAR
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, REP.BY
REGISTRAR, SCOPE MINAR, 4TH FLOOR, CORE-II, LAKSHMI
NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 092
R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.D.RAVINDRA PRASAD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX VARGHESE
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.909/2020 2
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of January 2021
Shaffique, J.
This review petition has been filed alleging that the judgment
dated 24.6.2020 in W.A.No.996/2015 suffers from error apparent on the
face of the record. We do not think so. This was a case in which
damages and interest had been levied on the writ petitioner/appellant.
One of the main contentions urged by the appellant was that the
impugned order does not reflect reasons for quantifying the damages
especially when substantial payments have already been made. Having
heard the matter at length, we have, after taking into consideration of
the fact Ext.P2 order does not state any reasons for rejecting the
contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and has been issued in a
printed form, set aside the claim for damages under Ext.P2. It is also
stated that Ext.P2 is arbitrary since it does not disclose any reasons.
2. The Review petitioner through another counsel had now
approached this Court contending that show cause notice had been
issued earlier indicating the delay in payment. Be that as it may, when
an objection had been raised clearly indicating under what
circumstances there had been delay in payment, the competent
authority was bound to consider the objection and pass a reasoned
order, which was apparently lacking in the case on hand. That apart, the
order had been passed in a printed form. We have in effect considered
all contentions urged on behalf of the review petitioner. Virtually,
request is for re-hearing of the matter, which is not contemplated in a
petition for review.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
