IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17106 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.VAHEEDKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, MUKHATHALA CHSHEW PROCESSING, MUKHATHALA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,CORE-2,4TH FLOOR,SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 092. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIOER,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,MANNANIYA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM-691 001. R2 BY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:17106 OF 2010 K ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is conducting a business in the processing of cashew nuts at Kollam. As per Ext.P6 order, the second respondent assessed the contributions payable by the petitioner under the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short) for the period from February 2007 to May 2008. The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 7A of the Act before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by filing Ext.P9 appeal against the same. The petitioner had also sought for a stay of the determination order Ext.P6. As per Ext.P13, the Tribunal has granted an order of stay but has made the same subject to the deposit of an amount equivalent to 35% of the amount determined by Ext.P6 order. The petitioner challenges the stipulation in Ext.P13 regarding deposit of 35% of the assessed amount. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P13 does not disclose any reasons to support the condition stipulating a pre deposit equivalent to 35% of the assessed amount. It is submitted by the counsel that in view of the dictum laid down by a Division WPC 17106/2010 2 Bench of this Court reported in Muthoot Pappachan C & M Services v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation {2009(1) KLT 341}, the first respondent was duty bound to state reasons for directing the deposit that is contemplated by Ext.P13. It is submitted that, in the absence of reasons, Ext.P13 is unsustainable and the condition is liable to be set aside. 3. The contentions of the petitioner are opposed by the standing counsel for the employees provident fund organisation, Adv. Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer. According to the counsel, huge amounts are due from the petitioner, which represent both the employers as well as the employees contributions. It is contended that the petitioner has no right whatsoever to retain the contributions due from the employees. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner should be directed to deposit a substantial portion of the assessed amount, as condition for an interim order of stay. 4. In view of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009(1) KLT 341, the condition in Ext.P13 directing deposit of 35% of the assessed amount cannot be sustained as the same is not supported by reasons. However, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, the grant of WPC 17106/2010 3 an order of stay without directing the petitioner to deposit at least a portion of the assessed amount would also be inequitable. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioner can be directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as a condition for maintaining the order of stay of Ext.P6. 5. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3 lakhs towards the amounts assessed by Ext.P6 within two weeks as condition for maintaining the order of stay that has been granted by the first respondent as per Ext.P13 order. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed modifying the condition stipulated by Ext.P13 on the above terms. The first respondent shall also make every endeavour to finally dispose of the petitioner's appeal expeditiously. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 17106/2010 4