IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32952 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.NANDAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, SHASTHA ENTERPRISES, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM 691 001. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 4. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM 691 001. BY SMT. T.N GIRIJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.32952 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the proprietor of a cashew factory. Petitioner's grievance is that now contributions have been assessed under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act on the petitioner in respect of the periods prior to the date when the petitioner became the owner of the cashew factory. Against orders under Section 7A of the Act passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal, Ext.P2, before the 1st respondent, Tribunal. Petitioner submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents 2 and 3 are initiating coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed amounts. The petitioner, in Ext.P2 appeal, has incorporated a prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order and because of the fact that the tribunal is not regularly sitting, he is unable to obtain interim order in the appeal. The petitioner, in the above W.P ( C) No.32952 of 2008 2 circumstances, seeks stay of recovery of the disputed amounts, pending disposal of Ext.P2 appeal. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation also who opposes the prayers. 3. I feel that when the petitioner has already moved the Tribunal by filing Ext.P2 appeal in which a prayer for an interim order is also included, the petitioner should be given some time to obtain order from the Tribunal in that regard. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition as follows: The 1st respondent shall consider the interim prayers of the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal as expeditiously as possible. Till orders are passed on the interim prayers in Ext.P2 appeal, further coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts disputed in Ext.P2 appeal shall be kept in abeyance. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.32952 of 2008 3 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.32952 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.32952 of 2008 5 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.32952 of 2008 6