IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 22831 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BOYCE RUBBER ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, REG. OFFICE 6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.N.K. KHALID BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BUILDING, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, P.B. NO. 36, KOTTAYAM - 686 001, KERALA ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22831 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition was filed on 22.8.2011 for an order directing the respondent to refrain from initiating coercive steps to recover the amounts assessed as per Ext.P3 order pending disposal of Ext.P4 appeal by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. It was contended that even before the Appellate Tribunal could take up the appeal and consider the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of operation of the impugned order, the petitioner was threatened with coercive steps. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing on 22.8.2011 this Court while staying the recovery pursuant to Ext.P3 order directed the petitioner to move the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal for waiver of pre-deposit and such other interim orders as are necessary. When the writ petition came up for further hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has by order passed on 16.9.2011 directed the petitioner to deposit WPC No.22831/2011 2 40% of the amount assessed with the respondent within two months and that subject to such deposit, the operation of the order impugned in the appeal stands stayed. In such circumstances, as the Appellate Tribunal has already passed an ad interim order and has also stayed recovery pursuant to the impugned order subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit 40% of the amount assessed within two months from 16.9.2011, I am of the opinion that no further orders are called for in this writ petition. It is accordingly closed as infructuous. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps