IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25883 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.JAYAPRAKASH, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRAKASH CASHEW COMPANY, KAITHAKODE PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES P.F.APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CORE-2,4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-1100092 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM REP.BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 3. ASSISNTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM REP. BY ADV. V.V.SURESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 25883 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that respondents 2 and 3 are taking coercive steps for recovery of contributions under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, while appeal filed by the petitioner against the order which is sought to be enforced is pending before the 1st respondent Tribunal, in which appeal the petitioner has also moved an application for interim orders, which is not yet been disposed of by the Tribunal. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider the interlocutory applications filed by the Petitioner along with Exhibit P1 expeditiously. b) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to keep in abeyance all proceedings for realization of dues assessed under Section 7 A of the E.P.F. Act during the pendency of Exhibit P1 appeal. c) Declare that the delay in considering interlocutory applications filed by the Petitioner by Exhibit P1 is arbitrary and illegal.” W.P(C) No. 25883 of 2009 -2- 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation stoutly opposes the prayers. According to him the amounts due comes to Rs.66,97,798.45/- and the petitioner is liable to pay the same in so far as the amount has been assessed on the basis of materials on record. 3. Having heard both sides I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given some breathing time till the Tribunal considers the appeal before the demand can be enforced. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: 4. The 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on ATA No.214(7)/09, as expeditiously as possible. Till the tribunal disposes of the appeal, coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed amount shall be kept in abeyance, on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.15 lakhs within three months. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs