IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3458 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.SCHIFFLIES INDIA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,SEBASTINE, PLOT NO.244,DEVELOPMENT ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,KOCHI,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,36/685 A, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,PB NO.1895,KALOOR, KOCHI. 2. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS,P.B.NO.1895,KALOOR,KOCHI. R1 BY MR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.M.CHANDRA BOSE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3458 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is conducting a small scale industrial unit manufacturing garments. According to the petitioner, the unit was started in June 2006. In November 2008, the petitioner was served with a notice stating that the unit is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. An enquiry was conducted and an amount of Rs.3,77,786/- was assessed to be due and payable by the petitioner as per Ext.P9 proceedings. The petitioner submitted a review petition against the said order requesting for waiver of employees' contribution till November 2008, contending that many of the employees who had earlier been working in his establishment had left and that their contributions have not been collected by the W.P.(C)No.3458/2010 2 petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has made substantial remittances to the amounts demanded during the period. His complaint is that without considering the petition for review, an order of attachment has been passed by the respondents. He contends that the proceedings initiated are without notice to him. 2. Sri.Chandra Bose who appears for the respondents has filed a statement refuting the contentions in the Writ Petition. According to the respondents, the amounts demanded are actually due and payable by the petitioner. However, it is admitted that the petitioner had been making payments towards the amounts demanded. 3. The counsel for the petitioner prays for payment of the balance amount payable, in monthly instalments, considering the fact that the industry itself was facing a lot of problems and is under threat of closure. He also prays for reservation of his right W.P.(C)No.3458/2010 3 to approach the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for waiver of a portion of the employees' contribution that he had omitted to collect from his erstwhile employees. 4. Having considered the rival contentions anxiously, I feel that this Writ Petition itself can be disposed of with the following directions: 1) The balance amount payable under Ext.P9 proceedings of the respondents shall be paid by the petitioner in six equal monthly instalments, the first instalment starting from the 15th of March 2010. The instalments shall be paid without any default and in the event of default of two consecutive instalments, the respondent would be free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 2) The respondents shall give credit to the petitioner for all the payments made by him as evidenced by Exts.P11 to P13 challans produced in this Writ Petition. 3) The right of the petitioner to W.P.(C)No.3458/2010 4 approach the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner seeking waiver of the employees' contribution that he had omitted to collect from his erstwhile employees is left open. 4) Further proceedings of the respondents to recover the amounts assessed as per Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)No.3458/2010 5