IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35135 of 2008(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THIRUVALLA TALUK CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., NO.A-253, CHUNKAPPARA, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, C.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT CHOLLAMMACKAL HOUSE, VAIPOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (SECRETARY), CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, NEW DELHI. 3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER E.P.F.O., REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, RECOVERY OFFICER, E.P.F.O. REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R2 TO 4 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.35135 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society. Provident fund scheme was made applicable to the petitioner’s establishment with retrospective effect. Exhibit P1 order passed in this regard covering a demand for EPF contribution for the period from April 1994 to March 1996 was challenged by the petitioner in Exhibit P3 appeal. Subsequently by Exhibit P4 order damages were imposed in relation to the period from March 1996 to February 2001. Petitioner filed Exhibit P5 appeal against Exhibit P4 before the Central Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 14(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and in the meanwhile pending what the petitioner calls disposal of Exhibit P5, recovery steps were taken against the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged Exhibit P6 proceedings initiated in this behalf before this Court in 2 WPC 11445 of 2006. This Court by Exhibit P8 order granted stay on condition that petitioner pays an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs. The writ petition is pending. In the meanwhile, steps have been taken by the 4th respondent to sell the assets of the petitioner for recovery of amounts due. According to the petitioner, if the order of stay passed by this Court is given effect to, the arrears would only be Rs.2,83,734/- petitioner is willing to pay the said amount provided some time is granted 2. I heard learned standing counsel for the respondents also. 3. Issue raised in WPC No.11445 of 2006 will be decided separately. But for the present case, I think it is only appropriate that petitioner be granted some time to pay the amount demanded as per Exhibit P9, less the amount covered by the order of stay passed in WPC No.11445 of 2006. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep further steps pursuant to Exhibit P9 in abeyance for a period of six months from 3 today on condition that petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 2,83,734/-in five equal monthly instalments commencing from 15th of December 2008. It is made clear that further amount which falls due under the Act shall continue to be remitted by the petitioner . It is further made clear that I have not considered the contentions of the Department which they have urged in WPC No.11445 of 2006. The same will be dealt with separately. If the petitioner defaults any one of the instalments, it will be open to the respondents to proceed with the enforcement of Exhibit P9 without further notice. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma 4 5