IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21336 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M. NAZARUDEEN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.A.N. CASHEW INDUSTRIES, MEVARATHU VEEDU, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA, SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-694 001. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM-694 001. 3. RECOVERY OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM-694 001. BY ADV. MR.V.V. SURESH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 21336 of 2010-N ---------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the second respondent in two different stages; the first one being the original order passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the second one passed under Section 7B of the Act. 2. The grievance of the petitioner projected in the Writ Petition is that, the petitioner is very much having the right of appeal, as provided under the relevant provisions of the law, within the period as prescribed; while the respondents have initiated coercive proceedings much earlier, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition seeking for interference. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record and also the relevant provisions of law, that the appeal period as prescribed, when it is counted from the date of the original order, is over. The learned counsel also submits that the appeal preferred beyond the extended time is not liable to be entertained under any circumstances. W.P(C) No. 21336 of 2010-N 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to sub Section 5 of Section 7B submits that, the order passed by the concerned authority in the petition under Section 7B seeking for review is liable to be taken note of and this being the position, the petitioner is very much having rights and liberties to challenge the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P2 order. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the impugned order was served to the petitioner only on 3.6.2010. This being the position, the petitioner is still having much time to challenge the proceedings and as such, the coercive steps are liable to be intercepted; submits the learned counsel. 5. After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the petitioner could be relegated to avail the remedy as provided under the relevant provisions of law. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise; all further coercive proceedings shall be kept n abeyance for a period of one month. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the merits of the rival contentions. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab