IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1733 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19841/2009 Dated 15/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- 1. M/S.TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES, K.P.ROAD, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.MOHAMMED NOUFAL. 2. M/S.ROYAL FOOD EXPORTERS, REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETOR S.MOHAMMED NOUFAL, PATTATHIL VEEDU, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II, E.P.F.ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. ADV.SRI.V.V.SURESH, S.C., E.P.F. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1733 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 13th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. Appellants are the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19841/2009. They are aggrieved by the steps taken under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. According to the petitioners, at the stage of initiation of the proceedings, they had approached the Tribunal as per Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition and both are pending before the Appellate Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the Provident Fund Commissioner has proceeded with Section 7A enquiry and passed Ext.P6 order dated 19.5.2009 determining the liability. One of the main contentions taken by the appellants is that the Commissioner should have waited at least till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Ext.P6 itself is appealable and hence granted liberty to move the Tribunal. Since Ext.P6 is in continuation of the proceedings already initiated, which is subject matter of Ext.P3 appeal, it is only appropriate that the appellants WA NO.1733/2009 2 either amend the appeal memorandum or take a challenge separately on Ext.P6. It will be open to the appellants to move the Appellate Tribunal, bringing to the notice of the Tribunal the intervening developments. There will be a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal or appeals in case another appeal is filed against Ext.P6 expeditiously, at any rate within four months. In any case, orders on Ext.P4 interlocutory application for stay shall be passed within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In order to enable the appellants to work out the reliefs as above, further proceedings shall be deferred for a period of four months. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1733 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 13th August, 2009.