IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2911 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.GOPAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, MV CASHEW COMPANY AND A.R.CASHEW COMPANY, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT THUNDIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THOTTUMUKKAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ANDAMUKKOM, KOLLAM. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 2911 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Proprietor of A.R.Cashew Company and M.V.Cashew Company, Chavara, Kollam. By Ext.P1, the first respondent determined the Employees Provident Fund Contribution due from him for the period, April 2008 to February, 2009. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,49,864/- is demanded in respect of A.R.Cashew Company and an amount of Rs.1,06,572/- is demanded in respect of M.V.Cashew Company. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said proceedings of the first respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, the impugned proceedings have been issued without hearing the petitioner. Though he has filed Ext.P3 application for setting aside the exparte proceedings, he complains that the respondents are proceeding with their action to recover the amounts demanded. 3. The counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Adv.Pirppancode V.S.Sudheer opposes the contentions in the writ Wpc 2911/2010 2 petition. It is pointed out by the counsel that the impugned proceedings are subject to a right of appeal under Section 7(I) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 4. The petitioner has filed I.A.2815 of 2010 producing an additional document, Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an appeal filed by the petitioner before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Ext.P4 is accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay as well as a petition for stay. It is pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that the question as to whether the appeal could be entertained or not would depend on the orders that are likely to be passed on the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, he submits that until the delay is condoned, it cannot be said that there was a proper appeal on file. The above being the position, according to the counsel for the respondents, there is no impediment in proceeding with the proposed action to recover the amounts demanded. The counsel for the respondents therefore prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already approached the Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal, I do not propose to consider Wpc 2911/2010 3 the sustainability of Ext.P1 proceedings. Of course, the appeal would be taken on file only if the delay in filing the same is condoned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also has ample powers to pass appropriate orders granting stay of the recovery proceedings also. However, the counsel for the petitioner expresses an apprehension that the amount is likely to be recovered even before the Tribunal passes final orders on the delay condonation petition. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts demanded pursuant to Ext.P1 proceedings till final orders are passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on the petition for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk