IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16366 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE KERALA CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,CASHEW HOUSE, P.B.NO.12, KOLLAM-691001,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY MR.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.E.K.MADHAVAN, SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA, MR..V.KRISHNA MENON. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-2, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA,KOLLAM-691001. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,7TH FLOOR,60 SKYLARK BUILDING, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 019. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. MR. P.V.S.SUDHEER, SC, PF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.16366 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th June,2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.U.K.Ramakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. Petitioner is a fully owned Government of Kerala company. Apparently it had faced heavy losses during the period 1997-2000 onwards. An inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Officer on 29.1.2008 directing the petitioner to enroll the trainees engaged by the petitioner as employees under the EPF Act with effect from 1.10.2007. This was objected to by the petitioner as per Exhibits-P5 & P6. 3. Thereafter, an order has been passed by the 1st respondent on 5.2.2009 as per Exhibit-P7 directing the petitioner to enroll the trainees. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal against Exhibit-P7 order, the same was withdrawn finding that Exhibit-P7 was only an order under Section 26B of the EPF Act. Thereafter Exhibits P8 and P9 inspection reports have been issued purportedly W.P ( C) No.16366 of 2009 2 quantifying the provident fund contributions from the petitioner as mentioned in Exhibit-P7. Exhibits P8 and P9 have been challenged in the writ petition. 4. As mentioned in Exhibit-P7, the Provident Fund Commissioner is to pass final order under Section 7A of the EPF Act and obviously the correctness of any findings contained in Exhibit-P7 can be challenged by the petitioner in an appeal against the said final order. The liability to pay contribution will be crystallized only after such final order is passed and not by reason of Exhibit-P8 and P9 inspection reports. If the respondent is desirous of passing a final order pursuant to Exhibit-P7, he may do so, after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Proceedings for recovery of any amount due from the petitioner, in relation to the matter covered by Exhibit-P7, P8 and P9 shall be taken only after such final orders are passed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.16366 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.16366 of 2009 4