IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23871 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SEBASTIAN CHOKKATTU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MIRA FLORES ESTATE, PADAGIRI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI-110019. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM.P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA. BY SHRI.THOMAS MATHEWNELLIMOOTTIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.23871 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner owns an establishment which is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. For delayed payment of contributions, orders have been passed directing the petitioner to pay damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the Act. Against the same, the petitioner has approached the Appellate Tribunal by filing Ext.P4 appeal, in which the petitioner has also sought interim orders. In the meanwhile, respondents 2 and 3 have initiated coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts under Section 8B of the Act, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that recovery proceedings pending appeal is unjust and unreasonable. He, therefore, seeks stay of proceedings for coercive recovery till the appeal is disposed of. 3. This is stoutly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization. According to him, admittedly there was delay in payment of contributions, w.p.c.23871/08 2 for which, statutory interest under Section 7Q is mandatory. He further submits that damages have been assessed taking into account the contentions of the petitioner also, which cannot be stated to be arbitrary or unreasonable and therefore, in respect of damages also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4. After hearing both sides, I feel that the petitioner can be given some interim relief in respect of recovery of damages pending disposal of the appeal. However, in so far as interest is statutory, the petitioner has to pay the same. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 appeal as expeditiously as possible. Till disposal of the appeal, coercive proceedings for recovery of the damages imposed shall be kept in abeyance. However, the petitioner shall pay interest under Section 7Q within three weeks from today. This would be subject to the further condition that the petitioner pays current contributions without default. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.23871/08 3