IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33274 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MSGR.ENAS, OTTATHENGUMKAL, MANAGER, ALPHONSA COLLEGE PALAI, BISHOP'S HOUSE, PALAI-686 575. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 33274 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Manager of Alphonsa College, Pala. By Ext. P1 order, the respondent directed that the college be covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and demanded contributions as assessed therein. Against the same, the petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. Since there was delay in disposal of the appeal and the respondent initiated coercive proceedings for recovery, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 34471/2006. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P2 judgment, wherein this Court directed the respondent to withdraw recovery proceedings for 4 months and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the appeal within 4 months. However, the Tribunal did not dispose of the appeal within the said period and since the period of stay granted by the Court is over, the respondent has again initiated coercive proceedings. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent herein to keep in abeyance of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 order, pending disposal of the statutory appeal by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.” 2. The prayers are opposed by the counsel for the respondent. He would submit that even for maintaining the appeal the petitioner is liable to deposit some amount unless the Tribunal dispense with the pre-deposit. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that as a condition for continuing stay, the petitioner should deposit some amount. Accordingly, it is directed that if the W.P.C. No. 33274/2009 -: 2 :- petitioner deposits 50% of the amount demanded within one month, further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance by the respondent. I also direct that on such payment, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty for maintaining the appeal would also be dispensed with. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.