IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10287 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.CLASSIQUE CONSTRUCTION, EZHUPUNNA ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR P.H.THOMAS THARAKAN BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR KOCHI 682 017, REPRESENTE DBY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR KOCHI 682 017. 3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 9TH FLOOR, MAYOOR BHAVAN CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 001. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.10287 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been assessed to contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“the Act” for short). In view of the circumstances obtaining in the petitioner's establishment, the petitioner paid the employer's contributions and sought waiver of payment of the employees' contributions. For considering the same the 2nd respondent insisted on the petitioner producing consent from the employees. According to the petitioner, the petitioner produced such consent. In spite of the same, by Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the 2nd respondent confirmed payment for employees' contributions also. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the Tribunal along with a prayer for stay of further action as also waiver of pre-deposit. The petitioner submits that while the appeal is pending respondents 1 and 2 have initiated coercive recovery proceedings. The petitioner challenges such proceedings. According to the petitioner, it is unjust to initiate recovery proceedings even before the expiry of the period prescribed for filing appeal. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing w.p.c.10287/08 2 for the Provident Fund Organization also. He stoutly opposes the prayer. According to him, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as directed. He further submits that even if this is court is inclined to prevent recovery proceedings that shall only be on the condition that part of the amount demanded is paid. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly the petitioner has already paid the employer's contributions. In such circumstances, I feel that pending disposal of the appeal, respondents 1 and 2 shall not recover the balance amount due. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The third respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the appeal, further coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. This order shall also operate as waiver of pre-deposit of the amount as provided under Section 7.O of the Act. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.10287/08 3