IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27077 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINU JOHN, PROPRIETOR, BABY CASHEW COMPANY, PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHY, BHARANIKKAVU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CORE-2, 4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-1100092. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANIA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. 3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANIA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM. 4. RECOVERY OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANIA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. V.V. SURESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27077 of 2009(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 I DATED 21.11.2008. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT OF MOVABLES ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.8.2009. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS UNDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 23.9.2009. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 27077 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was assessed to contributions under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, by order dated 27.8.2008. The petitioner filed appeal ATA No. 216 (7) 09 before the Appellate Tribunal challenging that order along with a petition for stay. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the Tribunal is yet to consider the application for stay and at the same time respondents 3 and 4 have initiated coercive recovery proceedings by issuing Ext.P2. The petitioner seeks stay of the coercive recovery proceedings. 2. This is opposed by the standing counsel for the provident fund organisation. According to the standing counsel, the order was passed as early as on 27.8.2008 and the petitioner was not able to get any orders from the Tribunal even after a year. Therefore the respondents 3 and 4 are justified and initiating proceedings for recovery of the amount covered by the order under Section 7A is the contention of the standing counsel. 3. I have heard both sides. W.P(C) No. 27077 of 2009 -2- 4. Failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider application for stay submitted by the petitioner is not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer because of that. But at the same time, I think that the petitioner should pay a part of the amount disputed for stay. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of ATA 216(7)09 filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, on merits expeditiously. Till the appeal is disposed of, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the disputed amount shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner pays Rupees one lakh within two months. I also make it clear that this order would operate as an order dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the disputed amount also for the purpose of maintainability of the appeal. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs