IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4239 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- JAISON.G.OOMMEN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE G.OOMMEN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.ST.MARY'S CASHEW FACTORY, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1016, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDDENT FUND, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1016, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 4. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION APPELLATE TRIBNAL, CORE 2, 4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAKSHMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. T.N. GIRIJA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W. P.(C) No. 4239 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s.St.Mary's Cashew Factory, Kollam. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation conducted an enquiry into the factories of the petitioner. The factories of the petitioner were inspected and proceedings were initiated under Section 7 A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with respect to the years 2005-06 and 2007-08. On the basis of Ext.P1 order contribution to the tune of Rs.15,81 904/- has been demanded from the petitioner. 2. The petitioner disputes his liability to pay the amount of contribution demanded. Therefore, he has challenged the said order before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by filing an appeal ATA No. 838(7) 2009. He had also filed a petition for stay of the order passed against him. During the pendency of the appeal, when coercive steps were taken against him, the petitioner approached this Court by WP(C) No. 4239 of 2010 -:2:- filing WP(C) No.37270 of 2009. As per Ext.P4 judgment dated 22.12.09, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all coercive proceedings till the disposal of the said petition. 3. According to the petitioner, a copy of the said order was received by him only in January, 2010. He had immediately forwarded the copy of the judgment to the Appellate Tribunal. While so, it appears that the appeal was posted on 14.10.09 for hearing, without notice to the petitioner. Since there was no representation for the petitioner when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the same was dismissed for default. The petitioner has immediately filed a petition for restoration of the appeal under Rule 15(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal(Procedure) Rules, 1997. His case is that the petition for restoration is still pending. The complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents are initiating steps to recover the amount assessed, in spite of the pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, he seeks appropriate directions to WP(C) No. 4239 of 2010 -:3:- keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.T.N. Girija who appears for the respondents. 5. Since Ext.P7 application for restoration of the petitioner's appeal is pending before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, I do not think that it is appropriate for the authorities to initiate action to recover the amounts assessed at this stage. There is already a direction issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment to dispose of the stay petition as well as the petition for waiver of pre-deposit, expeditiously. It is not clear whether the judgment of this Court was brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal while passing Ext.P5 order. Since the stay petition is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing an expeditious disposal of the stay petition. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P7 application, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of WP(C) No. 4239 of 2010 -:4:- one month, after issuing notice to and hearing the petitioner. Until final orders are passed on Ext.P7 application, coercive steps to recover the amounts demanded shall remain stayed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ttb