IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27180 of 2008(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- A2Z PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., RNP LANE, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASOK.P. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PATTOM PALACE.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-4. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 4. MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PUTHENCHANTHA BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM. BY SRI. T.N. GIRIJA -SC SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR – ASST. SOL. GENERAL SRI. P. GOPINATH MENON - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.27180 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the petitioner filed a review application, which was dismissed by Ext.P3 order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which is pending. The petitioner is now aggrieved by Ext.P7 notice under Section 8F of the Act initiating coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts covered by Ext.P1. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner paid almost half of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 and in such circumstances, when appeal is pending, it is unjust to initiate coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed amounts. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation also. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent – Tribunal considers W.P.(c)No.27180/08 2 the prayer of the petitioner for interim orders in Ext.P6. I am also satisfied that pending consideration of the interim prayer of the petitioner, it is unjust to initiate coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed amounts. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the interim prayers in Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible. Till orders are thus passed on the interim prayers of the petitioner in Ext.P6 by the 2nd respondent, further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 including Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.27180/08 3