IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10215 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. M.M.J. PLANTATIONS, BON AMI TEA GARDEN, MANARKATTU BLDGS. PALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. REGI MICHAEL. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI, MR.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BLDGS, C M S COLLEGE ROAD, P.B. NO. 36, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHLAKUZHY BLDGS., C M S COLLEGE ROAD, P.B. NO. 36, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJI GAMA PALACE NEW DELHI-110 066. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.10215 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Managing Director of a firm, that was conducting a Tea Estate. The same is an establishment governed by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (' for short, ` the Act'). The Estate had to be closed down due to acute financial problems during August, 2002. The petitioner's estate is one among the 33 Tea Estates included in a revival package announced by the Central Government. Accordingly, the Estate has started functioning from 10.7.2007. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been granted a moratorium period of ten years to pay off all its statutory dues, with the object of facilitating its revival and rehabilitation. 2. In the above circumstances, the first respondent has imposed damages under Section 14B of the Act for the period from 3/02 to 8/02 as per Ext.P3 proceedings. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 to the third respondent, requesting for sanction of instalment facility, to Wpc 10215/2010 2 pay the amount of damages that has been charged, it is complained that no orders have been passed thereon, till date. 3. I have heard Adv.Joy Thattil Itoop, who appears for respondents 1 and 2. 4. The counsel for the petitioner requests for a facility to pay the amount demanded in Ext.P7 in instalments. According to the counsel, since the petitioner has been granted a period of ten years to discharge all its other statutory dues with the object of reviving and rehabilitating the Estate, a similar facility is necessary to be granted in discharging the dues under Ext.P7 also. At any rate, it is submitted that a reasonable period can be granted to discharge the liabilities in instalments. In view of the limited nature of the relief claimed, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to other respondent. 5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the amounts demanded as per Ext.P7 proceedings in 20 equal monthly instalments, the first instalment to commence from 15.4.2010, with the succeeding instalments to be paid on the 15th of each succeeding month thereafter. In the meantime, further Wpc 10215/2010 3 proceedings to recover the amount demanded in Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner defaulting payment of two consecutive instalments, the respondents shall be free to proceed with action in accordance with law to recover the amounts demanded. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk