IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27016 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.SHAMNA CASHEW EXPORTS, PARAKULAM, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NAZAR MUSALIAR. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN, SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDAS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANNIA COMPLEX, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION, MANNANNIA COMPLEX, KOLLAM. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.V.V. SURESH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.27016 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 7th September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Shamna Cashew Exports bearing Code No.KR/1313. As per Ext.P1 order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.8,79,479/- towards the amounts due from the employer in respect of the establishment. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition thereon. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the pendency of Ext.P3 stay petition and Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the first respondent, steps are being taken by the respondents for implementing Ext.P1. Considering the fact that the appellate authority is yet to take a decision on Ext.P3 stay petition and Ext.P4 petition for waiving the pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in taking hasty steps for implementing Ext.P1 order. In this context, it is to be noted that Ext.P1 is dated 17.5.2010 and Exts.P2, P3 and P4 were filed on 27.8.2010. The petitioner has filed the appeal along with a petition to condone the delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that towards the amount WP(C).No.27016/2010 2 covered as per Ext.P1, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been deposited. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as a coercive step the respondents have seized certain goods from the petitioner. 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner has resorted to appellate remedy and it is pending, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in seizing the goods. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents that the goods which were seized from the custody of the petitioner shall be released within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already availed the appellate remedy by filing Ext.P2 appeal along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the same, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the the petition to condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 appeal in case the petitioner moves the first respondent for that purpose within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the order on the said petition the first respondent shall pass further orders on Exts.P2 to P4 expeditiously. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 shall produce copy of this judgment before the first respondent to enable the first respondent to WP(C).No.27016/2010 3 comply with the above directions. Till the first respondent passes an order on the delay petition and subject to the same, on Ext.P3 stay petition, no coercive steps shall be taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in implementation of Ext.P1. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS