IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36849 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (INDIA)PVT. LTD, MANGALAM COMPLEX, P.B.NO.3, S.H.MOUNT.P.O, KOTTAYAM-6, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-1. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-1. 3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 36849 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. On account of the delay in payment of contributions under the Act, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 14B of the Act and levied damages amounting to Rs.30,96,089/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against that order and sought stay of recovery. The Tribunal granted stay on condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 5 lakhs within one month. That was not paid. The petitioner filed an application for extension of time for payment, which was also rejected by Ext. P6 order. Respondents 1 and 2 have initiated recovery proceedings by issuing Ext. P7 show cause notice, directing to show cause why warrant of arrest shall not be issued against the Managing Director of the petitioner for enforcing payment. The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. The petitioner does not raise any contentions on merits. All what the petitioner wants is some more time to pay the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs directed to be paid as a condition for stay. This is opposed by the standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation. He points out that the original order of stay of the Tribunal was passed as early as on 29-4-2009 and even Ext. P6 order denying extension of time was passed on 12-8-2009. Therefore, the petitioner had ample time to pay the amount and they have not cared to pay the same. Therefore, according to the standing counsel, the petitioner is not entitled to any further indulgence in the matter. 3. Having heard both sides and taking into account the facts and circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined to give two more weeks' time to the petitioner to pay off Rs. 5 lakhs directed to be paid as a condition for stay. W.P.C. No. 36849/09 -: 2 :- Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs within two weeks. If the petitioner pays the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs within two weeks, it would be accepted as payment in accordance with Ext. P3 order and Ext. P6 order would stand modified accordingly. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.