IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18742 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE PURATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PUTHUR P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, CALICUT-673 001. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI- REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR-110 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18742 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The petitioner is a covered establishment under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act. According to the petitioner, they have been remitting contributions in respect of all their employees. However, in spite of that a notice under Section 7A was issued by the first respondent alleging that the Society had failed to remit contributions in respect of three persons. According to the petitioner, they are persons who were engaged by another establishment by name National Security Service Society, Kottakkal and that they are not employees of the petitioner Society. The establishment mentioned above was supplying security personnel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that, without considering the contentions raised, an order has been passed demanding contributions in respect of the disputed three persons, as per Ext.P4. 2. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P4 in appeal before the second respondent, which is Ext.P5. According to wpc No.18742/2010 2 the petitioner, Ext.P5 contains a prayer for stay of Ext.P4 also. However, no orders have been passed on either the appeal or the stay petition, till date. While so, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P6 notice by which, the contribution assessed as per Ext.P4 is demanded by the first respondent failing which, coercive steps are threatened to be initiated. According to the petitioner, since the appeal Ext.P5 is pending consideration of the second respondent, issue of Ext.P6 proceedings is without any justification. The petitioner, therefore, prays for the issue of appropriate directions to keep the coercive proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. 3. Adv.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil who appears for the first respondent stoutly opposes the prayer of the petitioner pointing out that the petitioner does not have any case even on the merits and therefore, the pendency of the appeal need not detain the recovery of the amount that is demanded. According to the counsel, it would take years for the appeal to be heard and finally disposed of and therefore he opposes the grant of any interim order in favour of the petitioner. I have considered the rival contentions raised. wpc No.18742/2010 3 4. Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short) provides a statutory right of appeal to a person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 7A of the Act. The petitioner has availed of the above statutory remedy. The petitioner has also moved the said Tribunal for an interim order of stay of the order appealed against. Section 7-O stipulates deposit of 75% of the amount that has been determined as a condition for entertaining the appeal. Therefore, sufficient provision has been made to safe guard the interests of both the petitioner as well as the Employees Provident Fund Organization, during the interregnum that the appeal would remain pending, if the same is taken on file. Since the petitioner has already moved the second respondent Tribunal, which is the proper authority to decide on the correctness of the order passed under Section 7A, I do not think it necessary to consider the merits of the case pleaded by the petitioner. In view of the fact that a statutory right of appeal has been provided, the issue of Ext.P6 at this point of time is unwarranted. Recovery of the amounts demanded in Ext.P6 can be made after the petitioner exhausts his wpc No.18742/2010 4 statutory remedy. Since the Tribunal has ample powers to order the deposit of a portion of the amount assessed, if it is found necessary so to do, it is sufficient that the matter is left to the discretion of the Tribunal. In view of the above, it is sufficient that the recovery of the amount assessed under Section 7A is kept in abeyance till the stay petition filed by the petitioner is considered and disposed of by the second respondent-Tribunal. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing that all coercive proceedings to recover the amounts determined under Section 7A of the Act as per Ext.P4 including Ext.P6 from the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance till the second respondent Tribunal passes final orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner. The second respondent shall make every endeavour to consider and pass orders on the stay petition expeditiously. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/