IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11669 of 2010(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.NANDAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, SHASTHA ENTERPRISES, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. MR.B.SURESH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISAATION OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. BY MR. V.V. SURESH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.11669 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s Sastha Enterprises engaged in the processing and exporting of cashew kernels to foreign countries. According to the petitioner, he has 10 cashew factories, he employs about 2500 workmen and remits an amount of Rs.1.20 crores as contribution to the employees provident fund every year. He has a factory at Enathu in Pathanamthitta District and also at Kudikodu, which are both covered by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short). He has been remitting contributions due to the employees provident fund, regularly and without default. While so, acting on the basis of a complaint made by a Trade Union leader, the assessment that were completed on the petitioners for the years 2003-2007 were reopened and the contributions payable by him were reassessed. According to him, an exorbitant amount has been demanded as contribution by WPC No.11669/2010 2 the second respondent. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of reassessment passed against him, the petitioner had challenged the same before the first respondent - Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal against the same. Despite the pendency of the appeal, when coercive steps were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the assessed amounts, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WPC No.32952/2008. Ext.P3 is the judgment in the said writ petition. The same has been disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the interim prayers made by the petitioner expeditiously. All further coercive proceedings for recovery of the amount disputed by the petitioner in his appeal was also granted. 2. Subsequently the petitioner was served with a notice requiring him to appear before the first respondent at Delhi on 3.9.2009. However, since he was not in a position to proceed to Delhi and to attend the hearing, he sent Ext.P5 telegram requesting for a postponement of the hearing. Thereafter, by Ext.P6, his appeal has been dismissed for the reason that he was not present when the WPC No.11669/2010 3 case was called by the first respondent on 7.1.2010. The petitioner has already submitted Ext.P7 petition for restoration of the appeal. In the meanwhile, he filed W.P. (C) No.5485/2010 alleging that coercive steps were initiated against him for recovery of the amounts demanded, which has been disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment. In view of the said judgment, the petitioner seeks a similar direction in this case also. 3. Adv.V.V.Suresh who appears for the Employees Provident Fund Organization, opposes the prayer of the petitioner pointing out that large amounts are due from the petitioner to the Employees Provident Fund Organization and therefore, any order can be granted only subject to payment of a substantial amount. 4. I notice that the petitioner has already submitted an application for restoration of his appeal that has been dismissed for non prosecution. He only prays for appropriate directions to the effect that coercive steps to recover the amounts demanded may not be initiated until his restoration petition is disposed of one way or the other. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is WPC No.11669/2010 4 disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the restoration petition filed by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P7 and to pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, after issuing notice to and hearing the other parties to the petition also. Till final orders are passed on Ext.P7, all further coercive steps to recover the amounts demanded from the petitioner shall remain stayed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/