IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31143 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.MANYMEKHALA, PROPRIETRIX, THANAL PLACEMENT & REAL ESTATE SERVICES, SREERANGAM, GAURI NAGAR, PONGANMOODU, CHENTHY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CORE-2,4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI 1100092. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004 REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R2,3 SMT. T. N. GIRIJA R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31143 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the proprietrix of M/s. Thanal Placement & Real Estate Services. During the year 2004 an inspection was conducted by the enforcement officers under second respondent in the said establishment and subsequently, steps were taken to bring the establishment under the purview of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short 'EPF Act only). Later, an order of assessment was passed, on 27.7.2008 and an amount of Rs.2,94,511/- was assessed as the contribution payable. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed under 7A of EPF Act the petitioner preferred a review petition under Section 7B of the Act. But, the same was dismissed. Ultimately, Ext.P1 appeal was preferred before the appellate authority. Along with Ext.P1 an application for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit and another application for staying the operation of the assessment order, were filed. The said appeal and the interlocutory applications were taken up for WPC.31143/2010 : 2 : consideration and Ext.P2 order was passed by the appellate authority whereby 40% of the assessed amount was directed to be remitted as pre-deposit as a condition for staying the assessment order while admitting the appeal. It is challenging the said order viz., Ext.P2 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. In this contexture it is relevant to refer to 7-0 of the EPF Act which reads thus:- “No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7A: Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. A perusal of the above provision would undoubtedly reveal that to entertain an appeal against an assessment order the appellant has to deposit 75% of the assessed amount and that is the rule and the waiver or the reduction is the exception which could be ordered for reasons to be recorded in writing. In this case, the appellate authority after considering the application for waiver and taking into consideration the contentions passed Ext.P2 order fixing the amount of pre- deposit as 40% of the assessed amount. The question is whether Ext.P2 order is too perverse to invite interference. WPC.31143/2010 : 3 : The contention of the petitioner is that since organization to which the petitioner is the proprietorix engaged in social activities to assist the downtrodden women in the society by exploiting her social contacts there exists no employer- employee relation between the petitioner and such workers and those important aspects were not taken in to consideration by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P2 order. At any rate, the appellate authority should not have fixed the amount of 40% of the assessed amount as the amount of pre-deposit. There is no case for the petitioner, either before the appellate authority or this Court that it was registered as a charitable society. As the very name of the establishment reveals it is engaged in real estate services as well. Evidently, the assessing authority found the establishment as one covered under the schedule head “Establishment rendering expert service such as supply of personnel advice or domestic or departmental inquiries, special service in rectifying pilferage as per GSR No.731 dated 17.5.1971”. 3. Having heard counsel on both sides and having gone WPC.31143/2010 : 4 : through Ext.P2 order, I do not find any illegality therein which warrants interference. The petitioner cannot rely on the observation that 'no material has been placed to show that the appellant was declared as a sick unit' to contend that it requires interference. For the forgoing reasons I am of the view that this writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner pays the amount ordered to be paid in terms of Ext.P2 within a period of two months from today, it should be deemed as compliance with the condition in Ext.P2 order and in which event, the appellate authority shall proceed to consider the appeal on merits. Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge