PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is an establishment covered by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (the Act). They suffered Exts.P5 to P8 orders under the said statute. Ext.P5 is an order passed under Section 14B of the Act. Ext.P8 is an order passed under Section 7A of the Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the petitioners preferred Appeal No.1 of 2018 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam. Similarly, aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, they preferred Appeal No.11 of 2017 before the same Tribunal. As far as Exts.P6 and P7 orders are concerned, the petitioners have not taken up the matter further. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal referred to above and as such, they are unable to obtain interim orders in the appeals preferred by them. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.

(3.) It is beyond dispute that there is no regular Presiding Officer in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Provident Fund Organisation to defer further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 and P8 orders, until the Tribunal resumes its function, and a month thereafter.