IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28340 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.R.USHASREE, PROPRIETRESS, M/S.SAI EXPORT ENTERPRISES, KARINGANOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CORE-2, 4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 1100092. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28340 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The establishment of the petitioner is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. An order under Section 7A of the Act has been passed by the 3rd respondent determining the amounts payable by the petitioner in respect of the additional employees. The petitioner has challenged that order before the 1st respondent-Tribunal by filing Ext.P1 appeal. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings, before the petitioner can get interim orders from the Tribunal. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider the interlocutory applications filed by the Petitioner along with Exhibit P1 expeditiously. b) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to keep in abeyance all proceedings for realization of dues assessed under Section 7A of the E.P.F. Act during the pendency of Exhibit P1 appeal. c) Declare that the delay in considering interlocutory applications filed by the Petitioner by Exhibit P1 is arbitrary and illegal and d) be further pleased to issue such other interim orders as are warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that out of the 21 employees in respect of whom contributions are sought to be recovered in addition to the contributions already paid by the petitioner, 8 of them had already been superannuated from service and the balance 13 were W.P.C.28340/09 2 enrolled employees who had subsequently left service. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no contributions are payable in respect of the said 21 employees. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization stoutly opposes the prayer. According to him, order under Section 7A has been passed after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to prove their case and it is on the basis of the material available on record, the order impugned in the appeal has been passed. He submits that there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and the petitioner is liable to pay the contributions determined. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. In so far as the appeal filed against the order under Section 7A is pending, I do not think that it is proper on the part of the Provident Fund Organization to initiate coercive proceedings at least till the Tribunal considers the prayer of the petitioner for interim orders. However, I am of opinion that the petitioner should pay part of the amounts demanded as a condition for granting stay of coervice recovery. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall consider and pass order on Ext.P1 appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. In the meanwhile, coercive proceedings for recovery of the amount in dispute shall be W.P.C.28340/09 3 kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.75,000/- within one month. On payment of the said amount the pre-deposit of the amounts for maintaining the appeal would stand waived. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge