IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30390 of 2008(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KERALA ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED ENGINEERING CO.LTD., POST BOX NO. 8, KUNDARA – 691 501. QUILON, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MR. M.R. SREEKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.BENNY P.THOMAS SRI.ANIL D.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM -691 501. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 4TH FLOOR, CORE 2, SCOPE MINAR DISTRICT CENTRE LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.30391 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NOs. 30390 & 30391 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October , 2008. JUDGMENT The parties are common in these two writ petitions and the contentions are also similar. I will refer to the contention in WPC.30390/2008 in the first instance. The petitioner is a company constituted under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Apparently on account of the delay in payment of the statutory dues, proceedings were taken under section 14 B of the Act by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent and submitted that the delay in remitting the statutory dues was neither deliberate nor intentional. The company has been incurring huge loss over the period. Apparently, for the period from 1998-99 till 2004-05 the accumulated loss is 7607.66 lakhs. Nevertheless, Ext.P3 order was passed imposing damages to the tune of Rs.15,87,031/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal ATA.No.507/2008 before the Appellate Tribunal as per Ext.P4. By Ext.P5 order the Appellate Tribunal required the petitioner to WPC.30390 &30391 of 2008 2 deposit 30% of the assessed amount as a condition for stay of recovery of the amount assessed as damages. The same is under challenge. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that Ext.P5 order is discretionary and the Appellate Tribunal has only directed to deposit 30% of assessed amount as a condition for grant of stay. She further contends that at any rate the petitioner should be called upon to deposit atleast a portion of the amount. I take note of the fact that the petitioner is a Government of Kerala undertaking and Ext.P3 order pending in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, is one imposing damages under section 14 B of the Act, that too, at the maximum rate contemplated by the statute. I further take note of the fact that the petitioner, a public sector undertaking has been incurring a huge loss and the accumulated loss till 2004-05 seems to be in excess of 76 crores. In the circumstances, it may not be appropriate to impose a condition on the petitioner for grant of interim relief as sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P5 in both these writ WPC.30390 &30391 of 2008 3 petitions is set aside to the extent to which the petitioner has been directed to pay 30% of the assessed amount. The second respondent shall proceed to dispose of the appeal without reference to the condition for deposit of the amount . The writ petitions are disposed of as above. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/