IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 576 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3836/2010 Dated 10/03/2010 APPELLANT: RESPONDENT NO.2:- ------------------------ THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE,MANNANNIYA COMPLEX,CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4 ------------------------- 1. MANOJ.K,S/O.I.KUNJUKUNJU,PROPRIETOR, M/S MOUNT MORIA CASHEWS,CHERUVAKKAL,AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,PB NO.1016, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY IT'S COMMISSIONER. 3. RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PB NO.1016,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 4. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,CORE 2,4TH FLOOR,SCOPE MINAR,LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = == = = W.A. No. 576 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The first respondent herein was assessed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, against which he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. When recovery proceedings were initiated, he approached this Court and by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the Tribunal to consider waiver of pre-deposit and pass orders on the stay application. Till such time orders are passed, recovery proceedings were also kept in abeyance. Subsequently, under a mistaken impression that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal the authorities proceeded to attach portion of the goods, estimated value of which is around two lakhs. Hence the first respondent again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge, in such circumstances and in the factual background, held that recovery proceedings could not have been initiated so long as the Tribunal has not passed any order and hence allowed the writ petition lifting the attachment against which this appeal is preferred by the Provident Fund Commissioner. WA 576/2010 2 2. The legal position is that there could not have been a valid attachment effected in so long as there is no order passed by the Tribunal as directed by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. But it appears that in Ext.P3 judgment, in the absence of any time limit, petitioner was very happy and being in an advantageous position, did not move any application before the Tribunal. But this could have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the appellant and move for appropriate orders, which he did not do. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the appeal itself is posted for hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any good reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed with costs. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.N. RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-