IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11669 of 2010(G)
1. N.NANDAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :06/04/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.11669 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s Sastha
Enterprises engaged in the processing and exporting of
cashew kernels to foreign countries. According to the
petitioner, he has 10 cashew factories, he employs about
2500 workmen and remits an amount of Rs.1.20 crores as
contribution to the employees provident fund every year.
He has a factory at Enathu in Pathanamthitta District and
also at Kudikodu, which are both covered by the provisions
of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (the ‘Act’ for short). He has been
remitting contributions due to the employees provident
fund, regularly and without default. While so, acting on
the basis of a complaint made by a Trade Union leader, the
assessment that were completed on the petitioners for the
years 2003-2007 were reopened and the contributions
payable by him were reassessed. According to him, an
exorbitant amount has been demanded as contribution by
WPC No.11669/2010 2
the second respondent. Since the petitioner was
aggrieved by the order of reassessment passed against
him, the petitioner had challenged the same before the
first respondent – Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal
against the same. Despite the pendency of the appeal,
when coercive steps were initiated against the petitioner
for recovery of the assessed amounts, the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing WPC No.32952/2008.
Ext.P3 is the judgment in the said writ petition. The same
has been disposed of directing the first respondent to
consider the interim prayers made by the petitioner
expeditiously. All further coercive proceedings for
recovery of the amount disputed by the petitioner in his
appeal was also granted.
2. Subsequently the petitioner was served with a
notice requiring him to appear before the first respondent
at Delhi on 3.9.2009. However, since he was not in a
position to proceed to Delhi and to attend the hearing, he
sent Ext.P5 telegram requesting for a postponement of the
hearing. Thereafter, by Ext.P6, his appeal has been
dismissed for the reason that he was not present when the
WPC No.11669/2010 3
case was called by the first respondent on 7.1.2010. The
petitioner has already submitted Ext.P7 petition for
restoration of the appeal. In the meanwhile, he filed W.P.
(C) No.5485/2010 alleging that coercive steps were
initiated against him for recovery of the amounts
demanded, which has been disposed of by Ext.P8
judgment. In view of the said judgment, the petitioner
seeks a similar direction in this case also.
3. Adv.V.V.Suresh who appears for the Employees
Provident Fund Organization, opposes the prayer of the
petitioner pointing out that large amounts are due from
the petitioner to the Employees Provident Fund
Organization and therefore, any order can be granted only
subject to payment of a substantial amount.
4. I notice that the petitioner has already submitted
an application for restoration of his appeal that has been
dismissed for non prosecution. He only prays for
appropriate directions to the effect that coercive steps to
recover the amounts demanded may not be initiated until
his restoration petition is disposed of one way or the other.
5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is
WPC No.11669/2010 4
disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and
pass orders on the restoration petition filed by the
petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P7 and to pass
appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, after issuing
notice to and hearing the other parties to the petition also.
Till final orders are passed on Ext.P7, all further coercive
steps to recover the amounts demanded from the
petitioner shall remain stayed.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/