High Court Kerala High Court

The Plantation Corporation Of … vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 13 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Plantation Corporation Of … vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 13 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7976 of 2009(N)



1. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :13/03/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ==============
                 W.P.(C) NO. 7976 OF 2009 (N)
                 ====================

           Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

Heard both sides.

2. Petitioner is a Government of Kerala Undertaking and

an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Fund

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. By Ext.P1 order, an amount of

Rs.27,41,740/- was levied on the petitioner as damages under

Section 14B of the Act. This order was passed by the 1st

respondent.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, Ext.P2 appeal has been

filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. The appeal is

pending and in the meanwhile, petitioner submits that coercive

action in pursuance to Ext.P1 is being taken. It is in these

circumstances the writ petition is filed.

4. Admittedly, as is evident from Ext.P2 filed before the

2nd respondent, the appeal filed by the petitioner aggrieved by

Ext.P1 is pending. Therefore, in my view, it is premature to seek

realisation of the damages that is levied on the petitioner by

Ext.P1.

WPC 7976/09
:2 :

5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions.

(1) That the 2nd respondent Tribunal before whom Ext.P2

appeal is pending, shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, with

notice to the petitioner.

(2) This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment.

(3) It is directed that in the meanwhile, further

proceedings for realisation of the amount due under Ext.P1 will be

kept in abeyance.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp