IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12674 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.NANDAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, SHASTHA ENTERPRISES, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI. V.V. SURESH, SC, EPFO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.12674/2010 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 14/08/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/08/2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 17/11/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 15/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.12674 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Managing partner of M/s.Sastha Enterprises, engaged in the processing and export of cashew kernels. According to the petitioner, he has ten cashew factories in Kerala and employees nearly 2500 workers and pays around Rs.1,20,00,000/- as Provident Fund contribution in a year. 2. Action was initiated against the petitioner for delayed payment of contributions and he has been assessed to damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner has challenged the order passed against him by filing Ext.P3 appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. He has also filed a petition for stay along with his appeal. Both the appeal as well as the stay petition are pending. Therefore, he prays for appropriate orders directing that coercive action may not be taken against him for recovery of the amounts assessed, till the disposal of the appeal. Wpc 12674/2010 2 3. I have heard Adv.Mr.B.Suresh Kumar, who appears for the petitioner and Adv.V.V.Suresh, who appears for the Employees Provident Fund Organization. 4. In view of the fact that Ext.P3 appeal is pending before the first respondent, and that the same is accompanied by an application for stay, it is sufficient that the said proceedings are directed to be disposed of expeditiously. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petition submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. Until orders are passed on the stay petition filed by the petitioner, the interim order dated 9.4.2010 passed in this writ petition shall continue to be in force. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk