IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3200 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. JANCO DIPPED PRODUCTS (P) LTD., PLOT NO.18, CSEZ, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-37, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. HARI G NAIR, DIRECTOR, JANCO DIPPED PRODUCTS (P) LTD., COCHIN-37, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.37/3185, AISWARYAM, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ULLAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION, JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAVAN, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CENTRAL PF COMMISSIONER, HUDCO VISHALA, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-66. 4. THE ASST. PF COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EPF ORGANIZATION, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.S.GOWTHAM SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 3200 of 2008(E) ======================= Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks stay of recovery of contributions under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act on the ground that as per provisions under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions Act, 1985) there is a bar for recovery of such amounts, since the petitioner's company has been registered as a sick company with the BIFR. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation submits that the petitioner had taken up this contention three writ petitions filed earlier namely, WP(C) Nos.18988/2005, 11228/2006 & 32897/2007 which ended in Ext.P4 judgment, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the balance amounts due in six equal monthly instalments starting from 1.1.2008 and therefore, the petitioner cannot now file another writ petition seeking the same relief again. I find considerable merit in the contentions of the standing counsel for W.P.(C) No. 3200/2008/F -2- the Provident Fund Organisation. In so far as Ext.P4 judgment stands the petitioner cannot seek reliefs against the directions in that judgment. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp