IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14635 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.GREEN BERG RESORTS PVT.LTD. NADUKANI, KULAMAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT 685601 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR C.J.MATHEW. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI, SRI.N.SATHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BLDG. CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINAR CORE II, 4TH FLOOR, LEKSHMI NAGAR, DELHI 110 092. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (EPF INSPECTORATE) DISTRICT OFFICE, GRAMAPANCHAYATH OFFICE BLDG., MUNNAR 685 612. R1 ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 14635 OF 2010 D ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Thodupuzha. The petitioner is conducting a resort by name, Messrs. Green Berg Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner's establishment was sought to be covered under the provision of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short) by the first respondent. As per Ext.P1 proceedings the petitioner's establishment has been found to be an establishment to which the Act applies. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 before the second respondent by filing Ext.P2 appeal against the same. However, the said appeal was dismissed. Against the dismissal of his appeal the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 application for restoration, alleging that the dismissal was without the issue of notice to or hearing the petitioner. Ext.P5 petition is still pending before the second respondent. In the above circumstances the first respondent has issued Ext.P6 proceedings by which, he is proceeding to determine the provident fund contribution that is due from the petitioner in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 7A of the Act. According WPC 14635/2010 2 to the petitioner, the first respondent has absolutely no authority to proceed with the enquiry under Section 7A when the question of coverage itself is pending consideration of the second respondent. Therefore, he prays for the issue of appropriate directions keeping further proceedings of the first respondent in abeyance till his appeal is finally disposed of. I have heard Adv.Joy Thattil Itoop who appears for the first respondent. 2. In view of the fact that Ext.P5 restoration application is pending consideration of the second respondent, it is only proper that the first respondent awaits the decision of the appellate tribunal before proceeding to determine the contributions due to the petitioner under Section 7A of the Act. Therefore, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 are liable to be restrained. 3. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to keep in abeyance all further action based on or pursuant to Ext.P6 notice to determine the provident fund contributions payable by the petitioner until Ext.P5 restoration application is finally disposed of by the second respondent. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 14635/2010 3 WPC 14635/2010 4