IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2007 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1929 WP(C).No. 10145 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ACCELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO. LTD. EZHUPUNNA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALLAPPUZHA REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER( FINANCE) MR. GEORGE VARKEY BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE 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 BHAVISHIANIDHI BHAVAN, Nr.R.B.I. INCOME TAX CIRCULE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHAMADABAD - 380014 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHIANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN 3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI 4. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC. ADV.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.10145 OF 2007 ------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the recovery proceedings as per Ext.P3 by the 2nd respondent for recovery of dues under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent – Tribunal which was dismissed for default. The petitioner has filed an application to restore the appeal to file, which is due to come up for hearing on 30.3.07. The petitioner seeks stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, till the Tribunal dispose of that petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that some leniency can be shown to the petitioner in the matter of stay of recovery of the disputed amount till the Tribunal passes orders on the application for restoration of the appeal filed by the petitioner. But that cannot be without any conditions also. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition on the following terms. 3. On the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.60,000/- before W.P.(c)10145/07 2 30.03.07, the further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 shall stand stayed till the restoration application filed by the petitioner is finally disposed of. Further recovery proceedings shall be in accordance with the orders to be passed in the restoration application. If the appeal is not restored to file, the respondents 1 and 2 can continue recovery proceedings now initiated. However if the appeal is restored the petitioner shall move the Tribunal for orders of further stay, and recovery proceedings shall be as per orders to be passed by the Tribunal. However, this would also be subject to the condition that the petitioner has in fact filed a restoration application and the same is pending. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)10145/07 3