IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23692 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.NANDAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, SHASTHA ENTERPRISES, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23692 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s Shastha Enterprises and the firm conducts ten cashew factories in Kerala. According to the petitioner, he has about 2500 workers in his employment. He is paying an amount of approximately Rs.1.2 crores as Employees Provident Fund contribution to the third respondent every year. The petitioner has a cashew factory at Enathu in Pathanamthitta District. The same is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short). The petitioner has been remitting his contributions without any delay or default. 2. While so, acting on a complaint made by a Trade Union leader, the completed assessments in respect of the petitioner were reopened and the contributions in respect of his establishment was redetermined as per Ext.P1 proceedings. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 is wpc No.23692/2010 2 absolutely unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the same before the first respondent in appeal, ATA No.718 (7) 2008. He has also submitted a petition for the waiver of the pre- deposit that is stipulated by the Act. As per Ext.P6 order, the application submitted by the petitioner has been disposed of directing him to deposit 40% of the amount determined by Ext.P1 as a condition for maintaining the appeal. According to the petitioner, the pre-deposit stipulated, works out to a huge amount which the petitioner is not in a position to remit. 3. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already remitted substantial amounts by way of contribution to the third respondent in respect of the very same year, which works out to Rs.58 lakhs. The present demand is over and above the said amount. It is also submitted that the appeal has been taken on file finding that the petitioner has a prima facie case and that the same has been posted for hearing on 1.9.2010. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a respite of two months, within which time the appeal itself could be wpc No.23692/2010 3 heard and finally disposed of. 4. Mr.V.V.Suresh who appears for the respondent strongly opposes the request of the petitioner. It is pointed out by the counsel that what is stipulated by the Act is deposit of an amount equivalent to 75% of the total amount determined under Section 7A. By permitting the petitioner to maintain this appeal on payment of 40% of the said amount, a substantial relief has already been granted to the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that no further relief may be granted in the form of remission of the deposit that is stipulated by Ext.P6 order of the first respondent. 5. Having heard the counsel on either side and having anxiously considered the rival submissions, I am of opinion that the pre-deposit stipulated by the respondent Tribunal can be reduced considering the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as contribution for the relevant year. I also take into account the fact that the assessment of the petitioner had been completed earlier and it was reopened wpc No.23692/2010 4 later on a complaint by one Trade Union Leader. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal No.ATA No.718 (7) 2008 that is stated to be posted to 1.9.2010 for hearing and to pass appropriate orders thereon finally disposing of the same as expeditiously as possible, on condition that the petitioner remits an amount equivalent to 20% of the amount determined as per Ext.P1 proceedings. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/