Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
CRESCENT ENGLISH SCHOOL, MARANCHERY, MALAPPURAM – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4749 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.K.PREMALAL, SHRI.SACHIN RAMESH
For the Respondents: SRI. K R ARUNKRISHNAN (SC, EPFO)
The court allowed postponement of recovery proceedings for an appellant under the Provident Funds Act pending appeal.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the Prohibitory Order under Section 8F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The court considered the ongoing appeal regarding damages under Section 14B and allowed the petitioner to clear the demand in instalments. The court maintained that coercive proceedings shall be deferred until the stay petition is addressed. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P5 Prohibitory Order issued under the provisions of Section 8F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘the 1952 Act’). It is stated that Ext.P5 order pertains to the demand in Ext.P1 order as also the demand in Ext.P4 order. It is stated that both these demands are in respect of damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act. It is submitted that against Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred an appeal along with an application for stay and the same is pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. It is submitted that in so far as the demand in Ext.P4 is concerned, the petitioner does not intend to challenge the said demand and it may be permitted to clear of the liability in some instalments.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Organization also.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization and in the facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of directing that Ext.P5 Prohibitory Order shall be withdrawn and further coercive proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of amounts due under Ext.P1 shall be deferred till the stay petition filed in Ext.P2 appeal is taken up and disposed of. In so far as the demand in Ext.P4 is concerned, the petitioner shall be permitted to clear the liability in 10 equal monthly instalments, first of which shall be paid on or before 10.03.2026 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month. The petitioner shall be given credits of any amount already paid by the petitioner towards the demand in Ext.P4 while calculating the amount to be paid in instalments as above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
