IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 634 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2781/2010 Dated 02/02/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------- 1.THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANNIYA COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 2.EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1016, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1.KOCHUMMEN K., S/O.OONNUNNY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MINI CASHEWS, NALILLA P.O., PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM DIST. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR FOR R. SRI.R.RANJITH FOR R. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.634 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 9th April, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is the first respondent. Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the competent authority under Sections 7A and 7B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') respectively, the first respondent preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent Appellate Tribunal. Pending appeal, he moved for stay of recovery of the amounts, by filing Ext.P5 stay petition. Alleging that the stay petition is not being considered, the Writ Petition was filed. 2. The learned Single Judge directed the Appellate Tribunal to pass final orders on Ext.P5 and also directed the respondents 1 to 3, to keep in abeyance all further proceedings, pursuant to Ext.P1 order passed under Section 7A of the Act and Ext.P2 order passed under Section 7B of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition have preferred this Writ Appeal. WA NO.634/2010 2 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Ext.P3 appeal itself is not maintainable. Even though the appeal has been numbered, it is only a ministerial act of the registry of the Tribunal. Once the remedy of review is invoked against Ext.P1 and the same has been dismissed by Ext.P2, the said order is no longer appealable. So, there was no justification for granting stay of recovery, till the disposal of Ext.P5, an interlocutory application filed in the appeal, which is ex-facie incompetent, it is submitted. 4. If we accept the above contentions, the same would result in dismissing the appeal itself, which is pending before the Appellate Authority. We think, the remedy of the appellants is to move the Appellate Tribunal and submit the above contentions. Having regard to the facts of the case, we think, this Court is not justified in interfering with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, which is an order passed in the discretion of this Court. However, it is ordered that the Appellate Authority shall take up Ext.P5 and shall pass final orders, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to that WA NO.634/2010 3 direction, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.634 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 9th April, 2010.