SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., J
Hajee K. Mohammed Sahib – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18141 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sharan Shahier
For the Respondents: Anchala C

The High Court may grant a conditional stay on recovery proceedings under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, pending the consideration of an appeal and stay petition by the appellate tribunal, subject to the deposit of a specified percentage of the assessed dues.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to stay recovery proceedings initiated under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, during the pendency of an appeal before the industrial tribunal. The Court examined the request for interim protection pending the consideration of a stay application by the appellate forum. It was determined that a conditional interim stay should be granted to balance the interests of both parties. The main issue was whether recovery proceedings should be stayed while an appeal and stay petition remain pending before the tribunal. The ratio decidendi established that pending the consideration of a stay petition by a statutory tribunal, the court may grant interim relief provided the petitioner deposits a portion of the assessed dues, thereby protecting the interests of the revenue while avoiding irreparable harm to the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Table of Content
1. apprehension of recovery during pendency of statutory appeal. (Para 1)
2. granting conditional stay on recovery pending appellate proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is before this Court apprehending that recovery proceedings may be initiated by the Provident Fund Department for recovery of the amounts adjudicated as due in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the period from December, 2022 to March, 2024, at a time when Ext.P2 appeal along with a stay petition is pending consideration before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Department seeks time to get instructions. However, considering the limited nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, I am of the view that this writ petition need not be adjourned to enable the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions.

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing that till the stay petition in Ext.P2 appeal is taken up and considered by the Tribunal, further proceedings for recovery of the amounts due under Ext.P1 shall not be taken, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits an amount equivalent to 10% of the assessed dues within a period of one month from today.

4. If the Tribunal were to impose any condition of deposit for the stay, the fact that the petitioner has deposited

10% pursuant to this order, shall also be factored.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top