IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21394 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, CASHEW HOUSE, PB NO.13,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANNIA COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 21394 of 2010-Y ---------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed by the appellate authority in Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, being aggrieved of the order passed by the concerned authority under Section 7A of the E.P.F Act, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal before the second respondent Tribunal, along with necessary interlocutory application for 'stay' and also for 'waiver' of the entire deposit as provided under Section 7-O of the Act. 3. After considering the interlocutory applications, the Tribunal passed Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the liability, which according to the petitioner is not correct or proper, for the reason that the factual and legal position as projected in the appeal filed by the petitioner W.P(C) No. 21394 of 2010-Y 2 have not been properly appreciated by the appellate authority, while imposing the condition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that, the basic issue involved in the case is whether the coverage fixed by the first respondent in relation to the case of 'trainees' is correct or proper. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore V. Central Aracanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Ltd. Mangalore (2006 (2) SCC 381), in support of the contention. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner, who is a fully owned Government of Kerala undertaking, is facing acute financial crisis and the liability will come nearly Rs.680 crores in respect of the various amounts to be paid, including to the retired personnel, towards their service benefits. The factual position in this regard has already been taken note of by this Court as discernible from Ext.P5 judgment, whereby similar course pursued by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to satisfy 40% of the pre-deposit was intercepted and the appellate Tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the matter was re-considered by the second respondent, who passed Ext.P6 order, whereby the condition to satisfy the pre- W.P(C) No. 21394 of 2010-Y 3 deposit has been waived in toto; thus satisfying the genuineness of the case projected by the petitioner. Impugned order is sought to be intercepted, seeking to extend similar benefit in this case as well. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, Ext.P5 has already been subjected to challenge by filing appeal. But, pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the second respondent/appellate authority has reconsidered the matter and favourable orders have been passed, as borne by Ext.P6. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the 'condition' imposed by the second respondent vide Exts.P3 and P3(a) is not correct or proper. Accordingly, the the said 'condition' is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to consider and finalise the appeals, in which Ext.P3 and P3(a) orders have been passed, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and such final orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that the petitioner will continue to have the benefit of interim stay, till such proceedings are finalised as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE