IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1749 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R. VIJAYACHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, RAMAKAMAL RESIDENCY, NEAR SANKER'S HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 4. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 1749 of 2008(G) ======================= Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment. According to the petitioner, he has not employed the required number of employees for coverage under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in his establishment. However, the 3rd respondent has sought to cover the petitioner's establishment under the Act clubbing the petitioner's establishment with another establishment which according to the petitioner is a distinct and separate entity from that of the petitioner's establishment. In spite of the same, the 3rd respondent has passed Ext.P2, directing the petitioner to pay contributions under the Act holding that the petitioner's establishment is liable to be clubbed with the other establishment for coverage under Section 2A of the Act. The review petition under Section 7B of the Act filed by the petitioner was considered and rejected by the 4th respondent. The petitioner W.P.(C) No. 1749/2008/G -2- has filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 1st respondent Tribunal against those orders. Petitioner's grievance now is that the Tribunal has not passed orders on the interim prayer in Ext.P4 appeal and at the same time by Ext.P7 order, the 4th respondent has initiated coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed amount under Section 8F of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Petitioner therefore seeks stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7. 2. I have heard the standing counsel for the Provident Fund organisation also. I feel that the petitioner should be give some time to obtain interim orders from the 1st respondent- Tribunal for which a prayer has been made in Ext.P4 appeal. I am of opinion that it would be unjust to initiate coercive proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the disputed amount in the meanwhile. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the interim prayer made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 appeal as expeditiously as possible. Till interim orders are so W.P.(C) No. 1749/2008/G -3- passed, further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P2 and P3 for coercive recovery as evidenced by Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp