IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14890 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., MANGALAM COMPLEX,P.B.NO.3,S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM-6,REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K SMT.UMA GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,KOTTAYAM-1. 2. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,KOTTAYAM-1. ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14890/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a covered establishment under the EPF Act. Since there was default in payment of contribution for the period from March 2005 to February 2007 and March 2007 to February 2008, steps were taken by the respondents to impose damages on the petitioner. Ext.P1 objections were filed. Thereafter Ext.P2 order has been passed imposing damages. Ext.P2 has been challenged in appeal before the appellate Tribunal and the same is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, Ext.P3 has been passed by the respondents under Section 7Q of the Act levying interest for the contribution payable for the period from March 2005 to February 2008. Petitioner did not challenge the order and sought for permission to pay the amount in instalments. It has been rejected under Ext.P5 and thereafter, the bank accounts of the petitioner have also been frozen. Exts.P5 and P6 are challenged in the writ petition. W.P.(C).14890/2009 2 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents . 3, Since the liability to pay the interest is not a matter in dispute, respondents have no statutory obligation to offer the petitioner a facility to pay the amount in instalments. Nevertheless in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the amount levied as interest under Ext.P3 in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 1.7.2009. If there is any default in paying any one of the instalments, this facility shall stand withdrawn and it will be open to the respondents to proceed with Exts.P5 and P6. Ext.P6 shall stand lifted for a period of 7 months to enable the petitioner to pay the instament. It is made clear that if there is any default, Ext.P6 shall stand imposed with effect from the date of default as such. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs