IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17955 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.MALABAR COCHIN ARCADE (P) LTD., 40/515 A., M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 011, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. SHAFEEKH V.S BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SCOPE MINAR, CORE II, 4TH FLOOR, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 092. 2. THE ASST PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 36/685 A, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR KOCHI-17, KERALA STATE. R2 BY SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 17955 OF 2010 T ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is engaged in the business of sale of jewellery and other allied products. The establishment is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'Act' for short). As per Ext.P1 order the dues of the petitioner have been assessed under Section 7A of the Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 the petitioner has already filed Ext.P2 appeal before the first respondent. However, the appeal could not be moved for the reason that the Presiding Officer is on leave. In the meanwhile, the second respondent is alleged to be initiating steps for recovery of the amounts assessed as per Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, the said action of the second respondent initiated even before the expiry of the period of 60 days that is prescribed for filing an appeal is absolutely without any jurisdiction and unsustainable. It is submitted that the authority should have waited at least for the expiry of the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a stay of the recovery proceedings till the expiry of the statutory period. Since the question as to whether the order under Section WPC 17955/2010 2 7A is sustainable or not is pending consideration of the first respondent, it is sufficient that recovery of the amount assessed during the interregnum period is restrained. I have heard Mr.Chandra Bose who appears for the second respondent also. In view of the limited relief that is sought I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the first respondent. 2. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent not to proceed with the action for recovery of the amounts assessed as per Ext.P1 order for a period of two months from today. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 17955/2010 3