IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12131 of 2009(J)
1. R.RAGHAVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND CORPORATION
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.RAJA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 12131 OF 2009 (J)
=====================
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a receiver appointed by Munsiff Court, Attingal
in Ext.P1 order passed in OS 32/82 and on that basis, petitioner is
the receiver of the assets of Dr.Ambedkar Memorial Cashew
Factory.
2. It is stated that the establishment was covered by the
provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act. Some of the factories of the establishment were
given on lease to different persons including the 4th respondent.
3. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the 1st respondent
exercising its powers under Section 7A of the Act and directing
remittance of an amount of Rs.1,79,405/-. This liability is in
respect of a factory which, according to the petitioner, was
leased out to the 4th respondent.
4. Subsequently, review of the aforesaid order were sought
under Section 7B of the Act and that was disposed of by Ext.P5
order. Petitioner being the receiver of the assets of the
establishment, was aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and
WPC 12131/09
:2 :
therefore filed Ext.P10 appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
accompanied by Ext.P11, an application seeking stay of recovery
of the amounts due under Exts.P4 and P5. While the appeal and
the stay petition are pending before the Tribunal, it is stated that
the respondents 1 to 3 have proceeded with recovery pursuant to
Exts.P4 and P5 and as part thereof, have issued Ext.13
proclamation of sale proclaiming certain assets of the
establishment for sale on 27th of this month. It is in these
circumstances, the writ petition has been filed seeking for an
order for expeditious disposal of the appeal keeping in abeyance
further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13.
5. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the
respondents also. He objects to the prayer made for deferring
further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13, contending that in the
absence of any stay order passed by the Tribunal, they are
entitled to continue with the revenue recovery proceedings.
6. Though technically respondents cannot be faulted for
what it has done, fact remains that the Receiver of the properties
of the establishment have challenged the proceedings before the
Tribunal and the Tribunal is seized of the issue, I am inclined to
WPC 12131/09
:3 :
think that at this stage, the proclamation of sale and the sale now
proposed is premature.
4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the
following directions.
(1) That the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi shall consider Ext.P11, the stay petition filed by the
petitioner along with Ext.P10 appeal with notice to the parties, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of
production of a copy of this judgment.
(2) It is directed that in the meanwhile further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P13 shall be kept in abeyance.
(3) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before
the Tribunal and the 1st respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp