IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25415 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- NANDAKUMAR.N.,PROPRIETOR, DILEEP ENTERPRISES, LAKSHMI BHAVAN,THAMARAKULAM, BEACH ROAD,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM 698 001. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.25415 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 5th October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the proprietor of a factory in the name and style “Dileep Erterprises” engaged in processing of raw cashew nuts. Earlier, an enquiry under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act was initiated against the petitioner and that culminated in Ext.P1 order. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted a review under Section 7B of the Act and that was ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P3 order. The grievance of the petitioner is that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. However, the respondents are taking hasty action to implement Ext.P1 order. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel. The learned standing counsel submitted that Ext.P1 order was passed as early as on 22.6.2009 and the review petition itself was filed belatedly. Admittedly, against Ext.P1 order an appeal will lie and there is a provision for condoning the delay. Those are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of granting three weeks time to the petitioner WP(C).No.25415/2010 2 to move the appellate authority. It will be open to the petitioner to file an appeal along with a stay petition and also a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is made clear that I have not made any observation with respect to the merits of the contentions. Till such time, the respondents shall keep all coercive steps taken to recover the amount covered as per Ext.P1 in abeyance. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS