IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5962 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.VENUNATHAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S PROFESSIONAL COURIERS, PRASANTHAM, T.C.24/345, NEAR SANTHAMKOIL ROAD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PRVDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, KERALA REGION, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PRVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHU BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE BANK OF TRANVANCORE, CHALAI BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. SC FOR EPF SRI. T.N. GIRIJA SC FOR SBT SRI. SAJI VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 5962 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner's establishment is one covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. After an enquiry, exercising the powers under Section 7A of the Act, the 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P2 order dated 17.10.2008, directing the petitioner to make additional remittance of contribution. On receipt of Ext.P2, seeking review of the same, invoking the power of the 2nd respondent under Section 7B of the Act, petitioner made an application. That was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 dated 17.12.2008 and the petitioner submits that this order was communicated to him on 29.12.2008. Petitioner complains that before the expiry of the appeal period, recovery proceedings have been initiated as per Ext.P4 issued under WP(c).No.5962/09 2 Section 8F of the Act on 12,.2.2009. It is aggrieved by the coercive action taken at this stage the writ petition has been filed. Petitioner submits that Ext.P4 is premature in as much as he is entitled to prefer an appeal against Ext.P2, even at this stage. 2. Counsel for the respondents objects to the contentions raised. According to her, Section 7B application having been rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 17.12.2008, at this distance of time, it is impermissible for the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext.P2 order issued under Section 7A for the reason that appeal period of 60 days and the permissible period of condonation of delay of another 60 days also has expired. 3. It is true that the only remedy available to the petitioner at this stage is to file an appeal to the Tribunal against Ext.P2 order issued under Section 7A of the Act. Now the period specified is over. However, in the meantime since the petitioner has chosen to take recourse to review provided under Section 7B, on the rejection of the application under WP(c).No.5962/09 3 Section 7B, the appeal period available to the petitioner should be counted from the date of communication of Section 7B order which is on 29/12/2008. So counted the period of appeal expires only by the end of February, 2009. In view of that I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 proceedings issued under Section 8F of the Act is premature. Having regard to the above facts, the writ petition is disposed of as follows; 4. It will be open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P2 order counting the appeal period from 29.12.2008. In order to enable the petitioner to file an appeal as above and to seek appropriate interlocutory orders from the Tribunal, I direct that further proceedings pursuant Ext.P4 shall be deferred for a period of 4 weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.5962/09 4