IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27569 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL KAREEM,S/O.SULTAN, AGED 50,PROPRIETOR,M/S.FOUSIYA CASHEWS, AVANEESWARAM RSPO,KUNNICODE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,CORE-2,4TH FLOOR,SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR,NEW DELHI 1100092. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANIA COMPLEX,ANDAMUKKAM,KOLLAM, REP.BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,MANNANIA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM,KOLLAM. ADV. SRI. V.V. SURESH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 27569 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. An order has been passed under Section 7A of the Act directing the petitioner to pay contributions under the Act. A review petition filed under Section 7B by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has filed Ext. P1 appeal against that order. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner submits that the Tribunal is yet to consider the petitioner's application for stay and dispensation of pre-deposit. The petitioner therefore seeks stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation also. He would submit that no coercive recovery proceedings have yet been initiated against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is bound to pay the amounts due. He also submits that even if this Court is inclined to exercise the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that may be only on condition that the petitioner deposits substantial portion of the amount demanded as per the order impugned in Ext. P1 appeal. 3. Having heard both sides, I feel that it is only appropriate that pending disposal of the appeal, the coercive recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance. But, that cannot be without any condition. The petitioner is bound to pay a portion of the amount demanded as a condition for stay of recovery proceedings . Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The Tribunal shall consider and pass orders on Ext. P1 appeal as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the appeal, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount disputed by the W.P.C. No. 27569/09 -: 2 :- petitioner in respect of the order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs within one month from today. I also direct that this order would operate as dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount covered by the impugned order, subject to payment of the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs as directed above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.