IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26361 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.NANDAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SHASTHA ENTERPRISES ONAMBALAM CASHEW FACTORY, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 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 ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM -01. BY ADV. SRI. PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHEER.s THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 26361 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by coercive recovery proceedings initiated by respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of amounts determined under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, while appeal filed by the petitioner against the order under Section 7A is pending. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has also moved the Tribunal for interim orders and the Tribunal has not considered the interim prayers. According to the petitioner, it is totally unjust to take coercive recovery proceedings while the appeal and stay petitions are pending. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to consider Ext. P3 as expeditiously as possible, and till such time not to enforce Ext. P1 order. (ii) a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exts.P1 and P2 as illegal and arbitrary.” 2. Learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation stoutly opposes the prayers. According to him, the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and in every case, he has been given stay without any conditions. According to the standing counsel, even if this Court is inclined to grant a stay, that would only be on condition that at least 50% of the amounts due is paid. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that in view of the averments in the writ petition, coercive recovery proceedings shall not be proceeded against till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. But, that cannot be without any condition. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: W.P.C. No. 26361/09 -: 2 :- The 1st respondent-Tribunal is directed to dispose of Ext. P3 appeal as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the appeal, further coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount in dispute in Ext. P3 shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of the amount demanded within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.