IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12489 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- A.K.SREEKUMAR, S/O.K.K.PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, M/S.REGENCY CASHEWS, CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT JAYAVIHAR, KOCHUPILAMOODU, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SMT.A.K.PREETHA, SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM. 3. RECOVERY OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC,EPF.ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12489 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P1 and P3 proceedings issued by the respondents. As per Ext.P1, the employees' provident fund contribution due from the petitioner has been determined under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The total amount determined is Rs.10,75,936.75. Immediately, the petitioner has remitted a total amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. However, the balance amount is remaining unpaid. Therefore, Ext.P3 warrant of attachment has been issued by the authorities demanding an amount of Rs.5,25,937/-. 2. According to the petitioner, the factory is running under loss and due to financial stringency, he is not in a position to remit the entire balance amount in a lump. The petitioner, therefore seeks permission to pay the amount in monthly instalments of Rs.25,000/- each. 3. Adv.V.V.Suresh who appears for the respondents wpc No.12489/2010 2 opposes the prayer for the grant of payment in instalments. It is pointed out that the amount determined should have been remitted much earlier and therefore, there are no grounds for granting any facility of payment in instalments. 4. It is not seriously disputed that the cashew industry in general is facing problems. If the factory of the petitioner is attached pursuant to Ext.P3, it would result in closure of the same which would affect the livelihood of the employees also. Therefore, I feel that some time could be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount demanded in instalments, considering also the fact that the petitioner has made payment of Rs.5,50,000/- immediately after Ext.P6 determination order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioner can be granted permission to pay the amount due in eight monthly instalments. 5. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the amount demanded in Ext.P3 in 10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15.6.2010. The subsequent instalments wpc No.12489/2010 3 shall be payable on the 15th of each succeeding month thereafter. In the event of there being two consecutive defaults in payment of the instalments, the respondents are free to proceed with further action for recovery of the amount due, in accordance with law. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/