IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29867 of 2011(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.R.AJAYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REPRESENTING MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LTD., PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM -34. BY ADVS. SMT.A.K.PREETHA, SRI.ANIL NARAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CORE-2 4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 092. 2. ASST P.F.COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE PO, TRIVANDRUM 695 004. BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.29867/2011 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.7.6.2011. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 29867 of 201 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a company engaged in broadcasting. Its establishment is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 herein after referred to as “the Act” for short. By three separate orders issued under section 14 B of the Act, the second respondent levied damages relating to the period from March 2003 to February 2004, April 2004 to February 2005 and March 2004 to February 2005. The petitioner challenged the said orders by filing separate appeals before the first respondent Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed. The petitioner thereupon filed WP(C) Nos. 7351, 7353, 7386 of 2011 in this Court. The said writ petitions were allowed, the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal were set aside and the second respondent was directed to issue notice to the parties, hear them and pass fresh orders. The second respondent thereafter passed Ext.P1 order dated 24.6.2011 again levying damages to the tune of Rs.7,86,665/- under section 14B of the Act. Aggrieved thereby WP(C)No. 29867 of 2011 -2- the petitioner has field Ext.P2 appeal before the first respondent Tribunal accompanied by an application to stay further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 and also to waive the stipulation regarding pre deposit of 75% of the assessed amount. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 and inter alia seeking to a direction to the first respondent Tribunal to dispose of Ext. P2 appeal within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. When this writ petition came up for hearing today, Smt.T.N.Girija, learned standing counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organization submitted that as the petitioner has filed an appeal challenging Ext.P1 and the Appellate Tribunal has commenced sitting the petitioner should pursue the appeal instead of canvassing the validity of Ext.P1 in this writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner thereupon submitted that without any factual foundation in the pleadings that the petitioner had in the appeals filed from the order initially passed levying damages for the very same period deposited the sum of Rs.5 lakhs and that having regard to that deposit this Court may waive the condition regarding pre deposit of 75 % of the amount assessed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not oppose the said request. WP(C)No. 29867 of 2011 -3- In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to take up Ext.P2 appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment either from the petitioner or from the second respondent without insisting on deposit of any portion of the amount assessed as per Ext.P1, having regard to the fact that on an earlier occasion when the order initially passed in respect of the very same period was challenged the sum of Rs.5 lakhs was deposited by way of pre deposit. Until such time as the appeal is heard and disposed of recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc // true copy// PA to Judge