IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5485 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- N.NANDAKUMAR PROPRIETOR, SHASTHA ENTERPRISES KUDIKODE CASHE FACTORY, NEDUMANKAVU,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- 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 ENFORCEMNT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM 691 001. R2 & R3 BY ADV. V.V. SURESH, SC, EPFO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 5485 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the coercive steps stated as being pursued at the instance of respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the amounts stated to be due from the petitioner towards the contribution under the Employees' Provident Fund Act and Scheme thereunder. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel who entered appearance for respondents 2 and 3 as well. 3. The sequence of events shows that, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in WP(C) 16381 of 2008. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to consider the interlocutory application for stay during the pendency of the appeal preferred before the said respondent and to pass appropriate orders, making it clear that further coercive steps in respect of the balance disputed amounts should be kept in abeyance till such time. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, WP(C) No. 5485 of 2010 -:2:- pursuant to the above verdict, Ext.P4 notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner. But, because of some inability to be present on the particular date of hearing, i.e. 03.09.09 at Delhi, the petitioner sent Ext.P5 telegram seeking for adjournment and also requesting to have the matter posted in the 'Kerala camp'. However, without any regard to the said request, Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1st respondent, observing that the petitioner/appellant had not turned up and accordingly, the appeal itself was dismissed for non-prosecution. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 application, supported with an affidavit, seeking to restore the proceedings and has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition because of the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued in the meanwhile. 5. After hearing the submissions raised by both the sides and also on going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the matter can be disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to consider and finalise Ext.P7 in accordance with law. WP(C) No. 5485 of 2010 -:3:- 6. In the above facts and circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, with notice to the petitioner and also to the contesting respondents and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. However, till such orders are passed on Ext.P7, all further coercive steps stated as being pursued, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb