IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2781 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ O.KOCHUMMEN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.OONNUNNY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MINI CASHEW FACTORY, NALLILA.P.O, PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.RAJA, MR.R.RANJITH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1016, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 4. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. MR. V.V. SURESH, SC, EPF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.2781 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has been operating a cashew factory by name, M/s.Mini Cashew Factory at Nallila, Kollam District. The establishment is a covered establishment of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been remitting contributions regularly and without fail. While so, on the basis of a complaint filed by a trade union leader, the enforcement officer of the first respondent conducted an inspection of the petitioner's establishment. On the basis of the inspection, an enquiry was conducted and an order Ext.P1 has been passed, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.8,92, 852. Though the petitioner filed a petition for review under Section 7B of the Act, the said petition has also been dismissed. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent. Along with the appeal, Ext.P5 stay petition has also been filed by the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner is that the Wpc 2781/2010 2 respondents 1 to 3 are proceeding with coercive steps to recover the amount demanded as per Exts.P1 and P2. Therefore, the petitioner prays for keeping the coercive action in abeyance, until his appeal is considered by the fourth respondent. 2. Adv.V.V.Suresh, who appears for the respondents opposes the grant of any relief in this writ petition. According to him, since the petitioner has approached the Appellate Tribunal after the rejection of a petition for review under Section 7B, the appeal itself was not maintainable. Since there could be no prospect of obtaining an interim order in an appeal that is not maintainable at all, he contends that no order keeping in abeyance the coercive action that has been initiated could be granted to the petitioner. 3. The contentions of the counsel for the respondent are met by the counsel for the petitioner, who points out that the appeal filed by him has already been numbered as 88777(709). Since the appeal has been taken on file and numbered, the counsel for the petitioner submits that till the Appellate Tribunal passes final orders thereon, coercive steps may be directed to be kept in abeyance. Wpc 2781/2010 3 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions. 5. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and the same has been numbered, the petitioner is justified in seeking a respite from the coercive action initiated against him for the recovery of the amounts demanded. At least, until the Appellate Tribunal passes orders on Ext.P5 application for stay that has been submitted by the petitioner, the amounts demanded need not be recovered. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed with the coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 until orders are passed by the fourth respondent Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P5 stay petition. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk