IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29912 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.JAYAPRAKASH, MANAGING PARTNER, G.P.N.CASHEW EXPORTING COMPANY, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.29913/10 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 29912 & 29913 OF 2010 ========================== Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P2 orders passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal on the applications made by the petitioner along with the appeals filed by him praying for dispensing with the requirement of deposit of the amount found due in the orders passed under Section 7 A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. These orders have been passed in exercise of the powers of the 1st respondent under Section 7 O, and by these orders, the petitioner has been directed to remit 30% of the amount due for entertaining the appeals. 2. First of all, these orders are purely discretionary orders and unless the exercise of discretion is vitiated by any extreme case of arbitrariness, this Court will not be justified in interfering with such orders. That apart, waiver of pre-deposit can be ordered in a case financial hardship and a prima facie case is made out. A reading of these orders show that while the Tribunal agreed that the petitioner did have a prima facie case, the Tribunal held that WPC Nos. 29912 & 29913/10 :2 : the petitioner did not prove that there was any financial hardship. It is considering the above and in exercise of its discretionary power, the Tribunal has ordered deposit of 30%. I do not find that the petitioner has made out a case for interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. However, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall furnish the deposit amount, as ordered by the Tribunal, within three months from today, and thereupon, the Tribunal will consider the appeals on merits and pass orders thereon. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp