IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25173 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.MUTHOOT PAPPACHAN CONSULTANCY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, MUTHOOT CENTRE PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, MRS.JANAMMA THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., REP. BY THE ASST. PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MAIN BRANCH) SPENCER JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SECOND FLOOR, EPF HEAD OFFICE BUILDING, 14, BHICAJI CAMA PLACE HUDDCO VISHALA BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110066. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R1,2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25173/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P7 order the competent authority under the Employees Provident Fund Act assessed the petitioner for dues under the Act. The said order, Ext.P7, was taken up in appeal by the petitioner before the Tribunal, as is evidenced by Ext.P8. The Act provides for deposit of 75% of the determined amount as a pre-condition for maintaining the appeal. But there is a proviso which enables the Tribunal to reduce the said determined amount and accordingly, on a motion made by the petitioner, by Ext.P13 order dated 12.9.2007, the Tribunal required the petitioner to deposit 25% of the determined amount instead of 75%, to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of the order and proof of compliance to be filed by the Registrar of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, petitioner had challenged Ext.P7 order in a writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No.25783/2007. It seems that during the pendency of the said writ petition, as stated above, Tribunal passed W.P.(C).25173/2008 2 Ext.P13 order and on 5.10.2007, petitioner sought for withdrawal of the writ petition and accordingly, the aforementioned writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Substantial challenge made by the petitioner against Ext.P7 is pending consideration in Ext.P8 appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Mr.N.N.Sugunapalan submits that what is under challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition is Ext.P13 which is a discretionary order passed by the Tribunal and at any rate, the non compliance of which would have resulted in dismissal of the appeal itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.C.M.Stephen submits that the view taken by the third respondent in Ext.P7 is squarely against the view taken by this Court in W.P.(C).5477/2000 filed by the same petitioner challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, W.P.(C).25173/2008 3 1946. He therefore submits that Ext.P7 order is unsustainable. 4. The correctness of Ext.P7 is pending consideration before the competent Appellate Tribunal. I am therefore, not inclined to consider the challenge against Ext.P7. 5. In so far as the challenge against Ext.P13 is concerned, the order is a discretionary order passed by the competent Tribunal. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same. 6. But nevertheless, taking note of the facts and circumstances, I think it is appropriate that the petitioner be granted some time to pay the amount as directed in Ext.P13 order. 7. Accordingly, if the petitioner deposits the amount in terms of Ext.P13 order within a period of two months from today, such deposit shall be treated as due W.P.(C).25173/2008 4 compliance with Ext.P13 order. Petitioner will thereafter be entitled to prosecute the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs