High Court Kerala High Court

Luke Memorial Public School vs Regional Provident Fund … on 19 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Luke Memorial Public School vs Regional Provident Fund … on 19 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29407 of 2009(U)


1. LUKE MEMORIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/10/2009

 O R D E R
                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J
                ...............................................
                  W.P(C) No. 29407 of 2009
               .................................................
         Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a school covered under the Employees

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The

petitioner has been assessed to contributions under Act.

Although the petitioner has got a case that the assessment is not

proper, in so far as the petitioner had not availed of the statutory

remedies in time, the petitioner now confines their relief for

permission to pay off the amounts demanded in installment.

2. I have heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the

Provident Fund Organisation, who opposes the prayer.

3. Having heard both sides, I am inclined to take a lenient

view in the matter.

In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition

with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to

pay the amounts covered by Ext.P8 in ten equal monthly

installments starting from 1.11.2009. Every subsequent

installment shall be paid on the first working day of every

W.P(C) No. 29407 of 2009 -2-

succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the installments on due

dates without default, further coercive proceedings shall be kept

in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in

payment of any one installment, it would be open to the

respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without

having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs