IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9349 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.TEEKOY RUBBERS (INDIA) LTD., PALAI KOTTAYM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.THOMAS MATHEW KOTTUKAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BUILDINGS C.M.S. COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BUILDINGS, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 9th FLOOR, MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEAR SUPER MARKET, OPP.SANKER MARKET, NEW DELHI - 110 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 9349 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 19, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P7 show cause notice to show cause why warrant of arrest should not be issued, petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C) 28846 of 2006. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing that if the petitioner had paid the PF contribution together with interest payable under sec.7Q of the Act, recovery steps for damages under sec.14(b) will stand stayed for 4 months. There was a further direction to the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the appeal within four months. It is now submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that despite the direction in the judgment as above, the appeal has not been heard by the Tribunal till date and that in the meanwhile, further action for recovery is being taken on the basis of Ext.P7. It is on this grievance, the writ petition has been filed. 2. From Ext.P9 itself it is evident that this court had directed that the appeal shall be heard and disposed of by the Tribunal. WP(C) 9349/08 Page numbers However, if the Tribunal has not disposed of the appeal as directed by this court, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner and cannot expose it to the threat of coercive action. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of directing that Ext.P7 shall not be implemented against the petitioner unless and until Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent Tribunal is heard and disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-