IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31980 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOSHY'S ELECTRONICS LIMITED, P.B.NO.2, MANJADI JUNCTION, TIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KOSHY CHACKO. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. ADV.T.N.GIRIJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.31980 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a public limited company, of which 30 per cent of the shares are held by the Kerala State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd., which is a company owned by the Government of Kerala. They are recuperating from a very serious financial crisis and have just about restarted their operation. In view of financial crunch, there was delay in remitting contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act for the period 2006- 08, in respect of which, orders have been passed demanding damages under Section 14B of the Act as also interest under Section 7Q. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the order imposing damages under Section 14B. According to the petitioner, it would be deleterious to the functioning of the company, if, in the meanwhile, the demand for damages and interest are enforced. The petitioner seeks stay of recovery of damages under Section 14B pending appeal and instalment facility to pay off the amounts under Section 7Q. 2. This is seriously opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Organization. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. I am of opinion that since the enforcement of the demand may result in serious prejudice to the workers of the petitioner 2 company themselves, whom the Provident Fund Organization intends to protect by their action, it is only appropriate that the Provident Fund Organization does not enforce the demand now pending consideration of the appeal by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I direct that coercive proceedings for recovery of the amount due under Section 14B, which is the subject matter of the appeal pending before the Tribunal, be kept in abeyance till orders in respect of the same are passed by the Tribunal. However, the petitioner has to pay interest under Section 7Q, which is statutory, against which, no appeal lies. However, I direct the 2nd respondent to give the petitioner opportunity to pay the interest under 7Q in ten equal monthly instalments starting form 1.12.2009. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on the due dates without default, coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts under Section 7Q shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to take coercive proceedings for recovery of the interest under Section 7Q in a lump sum, without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3