IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26813 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.MOHAMMED NOUFAL, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUMTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS APPELATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II, E.P.F. ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. ADV.SRI.V.V.SURESH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.26813 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Managing Partner of an industrial establishment. Petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Ext.P1 notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the second respondent for an enquiry under Section 7A. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 application for copies of the documents on the basis of which Ext.P1 proceedings are initiated. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the first respondent- Tribunal along with Ext.P4 application for stay against Ext.P1 notice. However, the second respondent continued the proceedings. Petitioner therefore filed Ext.P5 petition requesting to keep in abeyance the enquiry pursuant to Ext.P1 till the disposal of the said appeal. Despite the same, again Ext.P6 notice has been issued, in which it has been stated that the appeal would lie only against an order passed under Section 7A and not against the summons issued initiating proceeding under Section 7A. W.P.(C) NO.26813 of 2009 2 Petitioner, therefore challenges Ext.P6 seeking the following reliefs: “i. to call for the records relating to Exts. P1 to P6. ii. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash Ext.P6 proceedings dated 17.9.2009 issued by the Respondent; iii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent No.2 not to pass any orders on the basis of Ext.P1 summons till Ext.P3 Appeal and Ext.P4 petition for stay are disposed of; iv. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 Appeal and Ext.P4 petition for stay. v. to stay all further proceedings including the pronouncing of orders in pursuance of Exts.P1 to P6 till the disposal of the above case; and vi. to grant such order as this Honourable Courts deems fit and just and allow the case with costs.” 2. Petitioner relies on Ext.P7 Division Bench decision of this Court, which according to petitioner, would show that an appeal would be maintainable. 3. I have heard the standing counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization also. The standing counsel would contend that no appeal would lie against Ext.P1. He further W.P.(C) NO.26813 of 2009 3 submits that the documents requested for by the petitioner would be given to the petitioner within two weeks. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The provision for appeal is contained in Section 7I of the Act, which reads thus: “7I.Appeals to Tribunal-(1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) of Section 1, or Section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting an an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof], or section 7C or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” That does not contemplate an appeal against the summons issued to an employer to take part in proceedings under Section 7A. As such no appeal would be maintainable against Ext.P1 notice. Even otherwise, the petitioner can take all his contentions before the 2nd respondent in the proceedings under Section 7A. No adverse order has yet been passed against the petitioner. That being so, the petitioner cannot insist on the W.P.(C) NO.26813 of 2009 4 second respondent keeping the proceedings under Section 7A in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal in so far as no appeal would lie against Ext.P1. The filing of the appeal which is not maintainable can be regarded as an attempt to stall the proceedings under Section 7A. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In view of the totally unsustainable contention raised by the petitioner with the sole intention of stalling the proceedings, I direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the Provident Fund Organization. (S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.26813 of 2009 5