IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 13016 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/s.CRYPTM CONFECTIONERY (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANJIRAMPARA ROAD, THODUPUZHA- 685 584, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND POWER OF ATTORNEY, M.V.LALU, S/O.VARGHESE, MANGALATH HOUSE, VENGALLORE P.O., THODUPUZHA - VIDE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 17.3.2004. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUZHI BUILDING, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM, 686 001. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUZHI BUILDING, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM, 686 001. 3. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 60, NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI- 110019. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANIZATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.13016 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the 1st respondent imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner has already filed Ext.P2 appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is aggrieved by the coercive recovery proceedings pending appeal. Petitioner's contention is that since the petitioner has filed appeal and moved for interim orders, it is not just and proper for respondents 1 and 2 to initiate coercive proceedings. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization: 3. Of course pending appeal, it would be harsh on the part of respondents 1 and 2 to initiate coercive recovery proceedings. However, this is a case of imposition of damages. The petitioner cannot claim that he is not liable to pay any damages at all, in so far as delay is admitted. That being so, the w.p.c.13016/08 2 petitioner has to pay a substantial portion of the amount assessed as damages for stay of further coercive proceedings. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. The third respondent Tribunal shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible. Till disposal of the appeal, further coercive proceedings pursuant to the orders passed by the 1st respondent would stand stayed on condition that the petitioner pays 50 percent of the amounts demanded within one month. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge