High Court Kerala High Court

Edward Stephen vs Employees Provident Fund … on 9 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Edward Stephen vs Employees Provident Fund … on 9 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4139 of 2009(P)


1. EDWARD STEPHEN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND

3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :09/02/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.4139 of 2009
               ---------------------------------
              Dated, this the 9th day of February, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner submits that his establishment is covered under

the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952. Ext.P1 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent exercising his

powers under Section 7A of the Act holding that the petitioner is

liable to remit the amount mentioned therein.

2. According to the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P1, he has

filed Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent seeking review of Ext.P1,

invoking the powers under Section 7B of the Act. Orders have not

been passed on Ext.P2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner apprehends

that coercive steps will be initiated against the petitioner to recover

the amount due under Ext.P1. It is with that grievance, the writ

petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as

also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. As already stated, according to the petitioner on receipt

of Ext.P1 issued under Section 7A of the Act, Ext.P2 application has

WPC No.4139/2009
-2-

been made by him by invoking Section 7B of the Act. So long as

Ext.P2 is pending, in my view, steps, if any, taken for recovery of the

amount under Ext.P1 is premature.

5. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider and

pass orders on Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioner, which shall be

done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of

production of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, it is

directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in

abeyance.

6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment

before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg