IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27834 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KERALA STATE CASHEW WORKERS' APEX INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.(CAPEX), P.B.NO.262,R.R.BUILDING,CONDONMENT WARD, KOLLAM-691 001,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,KOLLAM. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR,KOCHI-682 017. 3. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION FOR R1 ADV.PIRAPPANCODE.V.S.SUDHEER, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.27834 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a co-operative society of cashew workers. They are in deep financial trouble. They have been assessed to contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. There was delay in paying the same. As a result, orders have been passed demanding damages under Section 14B of the Act as also interest on the delayed payment. Against those orders, the petitioner has filed Ext.P18 appeal before the Tribunal, which is pending. In the appeal they have also sought stay of recovery as well as dispensation of pre-deposit. That is yet to be considered. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent has initiated coercive recovery proceedings. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P1 to P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P15 and P16 and quash the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P18 appeal as expeditiously as possible, and till such time, not to enforce Exts.P1 to P8, P9, P10, P11, P12 and P16 orders.” 2. Learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organization stoutly opposes the same. According to him, damages and interest are statutory. The only reason mentioned for non 2 payment is financial difficulties, which according to the counsel, is not a ground for reducing or waiving damages as laid down in various decisions of the high courts and the Supreme Court in the country, is the contention raised. The counsel further submits that in any event, interest is statutory and the petitioner has no escape from paying the same in so far as even the Tribunal cannot waive that statutory interest. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the members of the society are the workers themselves, in respect of whom only contributions have been delayed. According to the petitioner, for long the workers have been working without wages in view of the extreme financial stringency of the society. It is submitted that if the society is coerced to pay the entire amounts, the society will have to be closed down, as a result of which, the poor workmen themselves would lose their job. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that pending disposal of the appeal, coercive recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance. But that cannot be unconditional. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the Provident Fund Organization, interest on delayed payment is statutory and the same cannot be waived. In the above circumstances, this writ petition 3 is disposed of with the following directions: The 3rd respondent-Tribunal shall dispose of Ext.P18 appeal as expeditiously as possible. Pending disposal of the appeal, there would be stay of recovery of the disputed amounts on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.25 lakhs, which shall be paid in two equal monthly instalments. The first instalment of Rs.12 lakhs shall be paid within two months from today and the balance in another two months. The payment as above would also operate as dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit as a condition for entertaining the appeal on merits. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge