IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2078 of 2009(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M/S.ACCENTIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (FORMERLY M/S.GOESOFT TECHNOLOTIES (TRIVANDRUM) LTD). 233-235 NILA, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PRADEEP V.S, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. VISWAMBHARAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EFA ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC FOR EPF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 2078 OF 2009 (V) ==================== Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order passed on Ext.P2(a) application made by the petitioner for waiver of remittance under Section 7(O) of the E.P.F.Act. 2. Ext.P1 is the order against which appeal is filed. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that it was found that the petitioner had made payment of allowances to avoid payment of Provident Fund Contribution on actual emoluments drawn by the employees. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the industry wide practice in the IT Sector, the method adopted by the petitioner is what is adopted by all the establishments. In the nature of the findings, if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, the petitioner will not have to make payment of the amount demanded as per Ext.P1. Therefore petitioner has a prima facie case to argue the appeal itself. 4. Further in Ext.P2(a) itself, petitioner has stated that the liability is so huge that if the amount is to be paid, the establishment itself might end in closure throwing out the employees into unemployment. WPC 2078/09 :2 : Petitioner has also stated about the financial crisis of the establishment. Thus on both counts, namely that of prima facie case and also on the financial difficulties, I am inclined to think that the petitioner has made out a case for hearing the appeal itself without insisting on any pre deposit. 5. Therefore, Ext.P3 order directing that the petitioner should remit 25% of the amount due under Ext.P1 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, without insisting on any deposit by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp