IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23253 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.KRISHNAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.UNIFAB, AI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MUDICAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 547. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & RECOVERY OFFICER, EPF ORGANIZATION, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-17. BY SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SC BY ADV. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23253 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondent in proceeding to recover the employees provident fund contribution due from him by his arrest and detention. Ext.P4 is the warrant of arrest issued by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the total amount due is only Rs.1,94,905/-, which is admitted. However, according to him, due to financial difficulties, he is not in a position to pay the said amount in a lump. 2. Adv.M.Chandra Bose who appears for the respondent has filed a statement contending that the petitioner is a persistent defaulter, that as per Ext.R1(a) judgment he had been granted the facility to pay the defaulted amounts in six monthly instalments and that, he had not complied with the stipulations in the said judgment also. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner had been arrested and released after executing Ext.R1(d) bond. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any further wpc No.23253/2010 2 indulgence in the matter of payment of the contributions due from him. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Exts.R1 (a) and R1(d) relate to a previous period and that the entire amounts due thereunder have already been paid by him. The present demand relates to Ext.P1 order which is dated 24.5.2010. Therefore, he prays for the grant of instalments in paying the said amount. The counsel for the respondent opposes the above request by pointing out that an amount of Rs.80,318/- represents the employee's share of the contribution, which has already been deducted by the petitioner from the salary of his employees. It is pointed out that the petitioner has no right to retain the said amount. Therefore, the counsel seeks a direction to the petitioner to pay at least the said amount immediately. 4. Having considered the rival contentions in the light of the stringent financial condition of the petitioner, I feel that some indulgence can be shown in this case. Therefore, if the petitioner pays the entire share of contribution collected from his employees from 31.8.2010, the petitioner can be granted a facility to pay the balance amount in wpc No.23253/2010 3 instalments. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the entire share of his employees towards the employees provident fund contribution payable by him on or before 31.8.2010. If the said amount is paid in accordance with the above stipulation, the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the balance amount of contribution due from him as per Ext.P1 in five monthly instalments commencing from 4.10.2010. The subsequent instalments shall be paid on the 4th of each succeeding month thereafter. It is made clear that in the event of there being default on the part of the petitioner to remit two consecutive instalments, the respondent will be free to initiate proceedings for the recovery of the amount due, in accordance with law. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css/ wpc No.23253/2010 4