IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32067 of 2010(G) PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.POMSY FOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD., K.S.PURAM, VAVVAKKAVU P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANNIA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKOM, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING KOLLAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.32067 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a private limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of packaged food products, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. After the writ petition was filed, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal along with an application to condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal, an application seeking stay of recovery of the amounts demanded in Ext.P1 and an application seeking waiver of the deposit. The petitioner has also filed an application for posting the appeal and hearing it in the camp sitting at Trivandrum or at Ernakulam. 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner has invoked the appellate remedy available to it, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should pursue the appellate remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court at this stage. Though the appeal was belatedly filed it is stated that delay in filing the appeal is within the codonable limits. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal can W.P(C).No.32067 of 2010 -:2:- consider the application to condone the delay and pass appropriate orders thereon. In such circumstances I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to consider Ext.P2 appeal and the applications filed along with it, with notice to the respondent therein, preferably in the camp sitting being held in the State of Kerala and pass expeditious orders thereon. The Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal expeditiously and in any event within two months from today. Until such time, recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance in the event of the petitioner depositing with the second respondent the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) within one month from today. The Tribunal shall, while passing orders in the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of deposit, have due regard to the said payment if the petitioner complies with the said direction. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.32067 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 24th January, 2011