IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10215 of 2010(B)
1. M/S. M.M.J. PLANTATIONS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES
3. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEE'S
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent :SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :26/03/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.10215 OF 2010
............................................
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Managing Director of a firm, that was
conducting a Tea Estate. The same is an establishment governed by the
provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (‘ for short, ` the Act’). The Estate had to be
closed down due to acute financial problems during August, 2002. The
petitioner’s estate is one among the 33 Tea Estates included in a revival
package announced by the Central Government. Accordingly, the
Estate has started functioning from 10.7.2007. According to the
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been granted a moratorium
period of ten years to pay off all its statutory dues, with the object of
facilitating its revival and rehabilitation.
2. In the above circumstances, the first respondent has imposed
damages under Section 14B of the Act for the period from 3/02 to 8/02
as per Ext.P3 proceedings. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6
to the third respondent, requesting for sanction of instalment facility, to
Wpc 10215/2010 2
pay the amount of damages that has been charged, it is complained that
no orders have been passed thereon, till date.
3. I have heard Adv.Joy Thattil Itoop, who appears for
respondents 1 and 2.
4. The counsel for the petitioner requests for a facility to pay the
amount demanded in Ext.P7 in instalments. According to the counsel,
since the petitioner has been granted a period of ten years to discharge
all its other statutory dues with the object of reviving and rehabilitating
the Estate, a similar facility is necessary to be granted in discharging
the dues under Ext.P7 also. At any rate, it is submitted that a reasonable
period can be granted to discharge the liabilities in instalments. In view
of the limited nature of the relief claimed, I do not think it necessary to
issue notice to other respondent.
5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the
petitioner to pay the amounts demanded as per Ext.P7 proceedings in
20 equal monthly instalments, the first instalment to commence from
15.4.2010, with the succeeding instalments to be paid on the 15th of
each succeeding month thereafter. In the meantime, further
Wpc 10215/2010 3
proceedings to recover the amount demanded in Ext.P7 shall be kept in
abeyance. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner defaulting
payment of two consecutive instalments, the respondents shall be free
to proceed with action in accordance with law to recover the amounts
demanded.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk