THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6784 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the respondents shall not take any action pending his application before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal to set aside the dismissal order dated 3.3.2005 for default, and consequently to set aside the order dated 14.2.2006. Heard both sides. The material on record shows that the 1st respondent herein, passed four different orders for the periods from 7/96 to 9.97; 10/97 to 7/98; 8/98 to 2/99 and 3/99 to 7/01 under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”), in respect of the petitioner-company. The petitioner states that so far as assessment relating to the period from 10/97 to 7/98 is concerned it preferred an appeal before the appellate Tribunal, however, the same was dismissed for default. Thereafter, it filed an application to set aside the said order. Since no Presiding Officer is available and the appellate Tribunal is not functioning, the application to set aside the ex parte order could not be considered. In the meanwhile, the respondents have issued the impugned proceedings dated 14.2.2006, calling upon the petitioner to pay the assessed amount within 10 days, failing which steps would be taken for due recovery of the amount, without further intimation. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that since the application for setting aside the dismissal order is still pending before the appellate Tribunal, the respondents are not justified in taking recovery steps. Even according to the petitioner the said appeal was filed only against the assessment order for the period from 10/97 to 10/98. Hence, the impugned order dated 14.2.2006 cannot be found fault with on any ground whatsoever, in respect of the other three separate assessment orders. In the circumstances, it is left open to the respondents to take appropriate steps following due process of law, so far as the orders of assessment for the period from 7/96 to 9/97; 8/98 to 2/99; and 3/99 to 7/2001 are concerned. So far as the assessment for the period from 10/97 to 7/98 is concerned, the petitioner shall furnish the particulars of the application said to have been made before the appellate Tribunal within two weeks from today. Since the fact that the appellate Tribunal is not functioning as on today has not been disputed by the respondents, the respondents are directed that in the event of furnishing details of the application pending before the appellate Tribunal, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amounts for the period from 10/97 to 7/98 till such application is decided by the Tribunal on merits. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ (G. ROHINI, J.) 14th August, 2006. Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6784 OF 2006 14th August, 2006. Between: M/s LCK Cements (P) Limited, Sagar road (under BIFR), Macherla, Guntur District, represented by its Employer/ Managing Director – Nerella Venkata Kotaiah. .. Petitioner. And The Regional Provident Fund Commisioner-II, Regional Office, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur and two others. . Respondents