IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4752 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES LTD., OWNING PULLIKKANAM ESTATE, GROUND FLOOR, NGO UNION OFFICE BUILDING, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, S.D. BHATTER. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.4752 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a defaulter in payment of dues under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the 1st respondent demanding amounts under the Act. That is dated 4.2.2003. The petitioner submits that the petitioner could not in time challenge the same before the Tribunal because the Tea Estate, which is the establishment of the petitioner Company, was lying closed during that time and therefore the petitioner could not take timely action against Ext.P2 order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this happened at a time when the entire Tea industry in the whole State was in doldrums and recognising this fact, the Central Government themselves have by Ext.P1 Circular framed a Scheme for rehabilitation for Tea Estates in the State of Kerala as per which a moratorium against recovery of certain amounts due from tea estates under the Act has been imposed. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has now W.P.(c) No.4752/08 2 filed Ext.P3 representation before the 1st respondent in the matter, and they now seek disposal of the same and stay of coercive recovery proceedings in the meantime. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the Provident Fund organisation also. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the 1st respondent should bestow his attention to the matter in the light of Ext.P1 Circular. 3. Accordingly, I direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible. Till orders are passed on Ext.P3, coercive recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.4752/08 3