IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6261 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M. BASHEERKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, M/S. S.A. CASHE FACTORY, MUTTAKAVU, EDUMPANA P.O. KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATIION, KERALA REGION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUD COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA KOLLAM. 3. THE ENFORCEMET OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PRVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM BY SC SRI. PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, A.W.WP(C).NO.6310/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).Nos. 6261 & 6310 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P1 in WP(c).No.6261/09 is an order passed by the respondent exercising their powers under Section 7A of the EPF Act, holding the petitioner liable for making additional contribution. He sought review of the order by taking recourse to Section 7B of the Act and filed Ext.P2 application and that has been rejected by Ext.P3 order. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P4 has been issued threatening that on non-payment of the amount, prosecution steps will be initiated. 2. Similarly in WP(c).No.6310/2009, Ext.P1 is the order passed under Section 7A of the Act and Ext.P3 is the order rejecting the application made by the petitioner under Section 7B. WP(c).No.6261/09 & anor. 2 3. In these writ petitions the petitioners state that they intend to approach the appellate Tribunal against Section 7A orders referred to above. It is stated that in the meanwhile coercive action including prosecution is likely to be initiated and it is with that grievance that these writ Petitions are filed. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents objects to the prayer of the petitioners to defer further proceedings on the ground that admittedly, petitioners are bound to make payment of the amount due in terms of Section 7A orders referred to above. It is stated that therefore they cannot seek any indulgence from this court . 5. Irrespective of the controversies, the fact remains that petitioners are entitled to file appeal against Section 7A orders in terms of the provisions contained in the Act. In the meanwhile I do not think that coercive action in the nature of recovery or prosecution should be initiated against him. Therefore I direct that further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1,P3 and P4 in WP(c).N.6261/09 and Exts.P1 and P3 in WP(c).No.6261/09 & anor. 3 WP(c).No.6310/09 shall be deferred for a period of 4 weeks from today, In the meanwhile it will be open to the petitioners to approach the appellate Tribunal and seek appropriate orders for safeguarding their interests. Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.6261/09 & anor. 4