IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24334 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PRINCE P. PATTACHERY, PATTASSERY HOUSE, MUDICAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S XL ENGINEERS MUDICKAL. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE SRI.E.A.BIJUMON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685 A,BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI -17. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685 A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,KALOOR, KOCHI -17. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD SHRI.M.CHANDRABOSE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.24334 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings for arrest and detention of the petitioner for non-payment of contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The petitioner's contention is that for assessing contributions, the amounts which are not includible in the definition of “basic wages” have been taken into account for computing the amount for contributions, for earlier periods, challenging which the petitioner had filed appeal before the Tribunal which is pending. This Court had granted interim stay of recovery of the disputed amounts pending the said appeal. It is while said appeal is pending, on the same grounds, similar orders have been passed, and proceedings for arrest and detention have been initiated for recovery of the same. The petitioner would submit that if ultimately the said appeal is allowed, the excess amounts collected would be refundable to the petitioner, in which event, the petitioner may not be liable to pay this amount at all. 2. I am of opinion that without challenging the order under Section 7A of the Act, which led to the impugned proceedings, the petitioner cannot take that contention now. In 2 the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks instalment facility to pay the amounts now demanded. 3. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing Provident Fund Organization also, who opposes the prayer of the petitioner for instalment facility. 4. After hearing both sides, I feel that the petitioner can be allowed to pay the amounts in instalments. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay the amounts now demanded, which is the subject matter of Ext.P3, in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2008. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. The petitioner shall also pay the current contributions promptly without default. If the petitioner pays the instalments in time, coercive proceedings including proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue the proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3