IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19059 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- WEST INDIA STEEL COMPANY LIMITED, CHERUVANNUR, KOLATHARA P.O., CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NAVEENCHAND P. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINER, CORE II, 4TH FLOOR, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI -110 092. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM P.O., CALICUT – 673 006. R2 BY SRI. THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOTTIL, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19059 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an establishment covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner was running profitably, but, he is presently facing financial difficulties. Therefore, there was some delay in payment of the contributions due under the Act. In the above circumstances, an order has been passed by the second respondent under Section 14B of the Act imposing an amount of Rs.9,34,702/- as damages for the belated remittances. The petitioner challenged the order before the first respondent Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal ATA No.839(7)/2009, Ext.P2. However, as per Ext.P3 order, the appeal was dismissed for default. 2. According to the petitioner, no notice of the posting date was received by the petitioner and that was the reason why the petitioner could not appear on the said date. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 application for restoration of the appeal under Rule 15(2) of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. wpc No.19059/2010 2 The said petition is pending consideration of the Tribunal. However, in the meantime, the second respondent is initiating steps for recovery of the amounts assessed, through coercive steps. The petitioner therefore prays for the issue of appropriate orders keeping in abeyance the coercive action that is proposed. Adv.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil takes notice for the second respondent. In the nature of the limited relief that is sought, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the first respondent. Since the issues are engaging the attention of the first respondent, it is not necessary for me to consider the merits of the questions raised. It is sufficient that the coercive steps proposed are directed to be kept in abeyance for a month. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent not to initiate any coercive steps for the recovery of the amounts assessed as per Ext.P1 order for a period of one month from today. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/