IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36111 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- TRICHUR WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER STORES LIMITED NO.R.239, TRICHUR - 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN. SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR, SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY, SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI – 17. BY DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.36111 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the action on the part of the assessing authority under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `the Act') in taking coercive steps for implementation of Ext.P1 order prior to the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal against the same. When this matter came up for admission on 7.12.2010 this Court passed an interim order requiring the respondent to maintain the status quo. 2. Along with a memo the petitioner has now produced a copy of the appeal preferred before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal against Ext.P1. Since the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal to redress the grievance against Ext.P1, I am of the view that the petitioner has to pursue the same. However, the apprehension of the petitioner is that before the Appellate Authority passes any orders on the interim application submitted along with Ext.P3 appeal, the respondent may proceed with the steps taken in terms of WP(C).No.36111/2010 2 Ext.P2 to implement Ext.P1. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P3 appeal by availing the statutory remedy provided under section 7-I of the Act to assail Ext.P1 order this writ petition can be disposed of. Obviously, the petitioner has filed interlocutory applications along with Ext.P3 appeal. In fact, the petitioner has requested for waiver of deposit of the amount demanded as per Ext.P1. As an interim prayer stay of Ext.P1 order is also sought for. Those are matters which are to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal at the appropriate stage. Considering the fact that the respondent has already issued Ext.P2 for the purpose of recovering the amount determined as per Ext.P1 and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with interlocutory applications, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all proceedings initiated as per Ext.P2 for recovering the amount determined as per Ext.P1 for a period of two months. In the meanwhile, the Appellate Tribunal shall consider the interlocutory applications filed along with Ext.P3 as also the prayer for interim relief. Further action on Ext.P3 will WP(C).No.36111/2010 3 be subject to the orders to be passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P3 appeal. To enable the Appellate Tribunal to comply with the directions, it will be open to the parties to produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge