IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1493 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BASHEERKUTTY, S/O.KOCHUVAPPU KUNJU, PROPRIETOR, SHERIN CASHEW, PUTHUCHIRA, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT SHALIMA MANZIL, CHANDANATHOPPE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CORE-2, 4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-1100092. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM- 691 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.1493 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s.Sherin Cashew, which is a commercial establishment under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. According to the petitioner, he is paying the contributions due under the Act promptly and without default. While so, the Enforcement Officer attached to the office of the third respondent, visited the petitioner's factory and took a list of 47 persons, who were alleged to be employees of the establishment. The petitioner alleges that a copy of the Inspection Report was not given to him. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 7A was finalised for the period from November 2006 to April 2008 on adhoc basis, as per Ext.P1. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 by preferring a review petition under Section 7B of the Act. However, the review has been rejected by Ext.P3 order. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 and P3 before the first respondent in Ext.P4 appeal. 2. Ext.P4 appeal is accompanied by a petition for condonation of Wpc 1493/2010 2 delay, a petition for waiving the amount of deposit contemplated by Section 7(O) of the Act as well as a petition for stay of Ext.P1. The complaint of the petitioner is that though no orders have been passed on the petitions referred to above, coercive action is being initiated to recover the amount that has been assessed as per Ext.P1. Ext.P7 is the notice issued by the third respondent, initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner. 3. I have heard Adv.V.V.Suresh, Standing counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation also. 4. In the circumstances of the case, it is enough that this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass final orders on the petitions pending before it expeditiously. Since the challenge against Ext.P1 is under consideration of the first respondent, I am not proposing to consider the contentions of the petitioner on the merits. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the petition for condonation of delay, the petition for stay as well as the petition for waiver of the deposit as contemplated by Section 7(O) of the Act, in accordance Wpc 1493/2010 3 with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. Until orders are passed on the petitions referred to above, all coercive steps to recover the amounts assessed as per Ext.P1, pursuant to Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk