IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23272 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL RASHEED, S/O. LATE MASTAN KUNJU, SHAMEEMA MANZIL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: ------------- THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING, SIUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.23272 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Enforcement Officer of the Provident Fund Organization in demanding contributions in respect of the additional employees, with respect to whom, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay contributions. The petitioner's contention is that the demand by the Enforcement Officer, without adjudication proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, cannot demand contributions, when the same is disputed by the employer. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization also. 3. When the petitioner disputes the liability to pay contributions in respect of certain employees, in respect of whom the Enforcement Officer has demanded contributions, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, without which no coercive w.p.c.23272/08 2 proceedings can be initiated for recovery in respect of the same. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner in respect of the disputed amount, unless the respondent passes an order under Section 7A of the Act after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, which shall include opportunity to adduce evidence also. Needless to say, this would be further subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge