IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6322 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SDF INDUSTRIES LIMITED (FORMERLY SUPERSTAR DISTILLERIES AND FOODS LTD.),SRI VIKAS, 7/223, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA, HAVING ITS REGD.OFFICE AT SDF HOUSE, 7/352, NH BYE-PASS ROAD, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA, REP. BY ITS LAISON EXECUTIVE SUNNY MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-17, KERALA. 2. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. BY ADV.SRI.S.GOWTHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.6322 of 2008 ======================= Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be a sick industrial company, in respect of whom the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has formulated a scheme for revival of the company. Therefore, according to them, they are entitled to waiver of damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. In spite of the same, by Ext.P5 orders, damages have been imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner therefore filed Ext.P6 petition under the Second Proviso to Section 14 B of the Act, before the 2nd respondent seeking waiver of damages imposed under Section 14 B, by Ext.P5 order. Petitioner’s grievance is that while the application is pending, the 1st respondent is taking coercive proceedings for recovery of the damages by issuing Ext.P7 order under Section 8F of the Act. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P6 expeditiously and stay of W.P.(C) No.6322/2008 -2- Ext.P7, pending disposal of Ext.P6 by the 2nd respondent. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the provident fund organization also. He opposes the same and submits that if this Court is inclined to stay further proceedings, the same may be on condition that the petitioner pays the interest under Section 7Q, in respect of which there is no provision for waiver. 3. After hearing both sides, I feel that the 2nd respondent shall dispose of Ext.P6 expeditiously. While Ext.P6 is pending it is not fair on the part of the 1st respondent to enforce payment under Ext.P5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible. Till disposal of Ext.P6, further proceedings for coercive recovery of amounts covered by Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner pays the 7Q interest payable within a period of one month from today. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp