IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5016 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.C.BALACHANDRA DAS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SREE SANKARA COMMUNITY FOR AYURVEDA CONSCIOUSNESS LIMITED,ANAKKARA,KUMILI, IDUKKI DISTRICT,STATE OF KERALA AND RESIDING AT SRINGERI,PERUNNAI,CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAGADEESCHANDRAN NAIR, MR.JIJO JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 4TH FLOOR,CORE-2,SCOPE MINAR, LAXMINAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 092. R1 BY MR.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.5016 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in seeking to make the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 applicable to his establishment. According to the petitioner, his establishment has only 14 employees and is not liable to be covered under the Act. However, as per Ext.P1 order, his establishment has been directed to be covered and contributions have been demanded. Though he had filed Ext.P4 appeal against Ext.P1 order, the same has been dismissed for default. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 petition for a review and rehearing of the appeal. The same is pending. By Ext.P7, this court has directed the second respondent Tribunal to consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of the appeal. In the meanwhile, Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner have been stayed. 2. According to the petitioner, the order of this court has been communicated to the second respondent-Tribunal as per Ext.P9. There Wpc 5016/10 2 has been no communication from the second respondent Tribunal thereafter. The petitioner complains that Ext.P12 proceedings have been issued by the first respondent in the above circumstances directing the petitioner to remit the assessed dues. The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 contending that the same is without any justification whatsoever. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Joy Thattil Itoop, who appears for the first respondent. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to keep all further action based on or pursuant to Ext.P12 in abeyance until Ext.P6 is finally decided by the second respondent Tribunal. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk