The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 Authority under Section 7A of EPF and MP Act, 1952, Cum Regional P.F. Commissioner-|, Regional Oflice, 12-1 , l st Floor, Susheeram Complex, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District - 502319 The Enforcement Officer, EIVPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANISATION, Regional Office, 12-1, 1st Floor, Susheeram Complex, Patancheru ,Sanga Reddy District - 50231 I The Presiding Officer, Central Government lndustrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, HUDA Complex, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue direction or order or writ one in the nature of firlandamus or any other appropriate writ setting aside the order dated 16.12.2024, in tA No. 1 and 2 of 2024 in EPF Appeal No. 54 of 2024 and another Docket Proceedings Dated 2210112025, on the file of the CGIT cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed by the 3rd respondent herein, in the interest ofjustice and equjty. lA NO: f OF 20 5

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to suspend the operation of the order under section 7A No.TS/RO/PTC/ENF/7-A Ordet t1984112024192, daled 09.08.2024, passed by the Authority under Section 7A of EPF Act cum Regional PF Commissioner, Regional Office, EPF Organization, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District, the 1st respondent herein and directing the 1st and 2nd respondent authorities not to initiate any coercive steps or take up recovery proceedings based on the said order, pending the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.HARIHARAN FOR SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA, SC FOR EPFO Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI K.ARVIND KUMAR, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court made the following: ORDER e HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.6420 of2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the foltowing reliet- "lo issue a Writ, Order or Direclion more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seuing aside lhe order daled 16.12.2024, in IA No. I and 2 of2024 in EPF Appeal No. 54 of2024 and another Docket Proceedings Datcd 22/01/2025, on the fle ofthe CGIT cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Ilyderabad, ptrsed by the 3rd respondent herein, in the interesl ofjustice and equit.y. "

2. Heard Sri V.Hariharan, leamed Senior Counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijhay K Punna, leamed Standing Counsel lbr respondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri K.Arvind Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the business of manufacture and sale of Bicycle Tyres and Tubes and the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act 19 of 1952') IS applicable to the petitioner's company. Respondent No.l initiated the proceedings dated 09.08.2024, 2 exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of Section 7_A of the Act 19 of 1952, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount ol Rs.7.43.14.5841- for the period from l2l202l to 212023. out of the said amount, petitioner has already remitted an amount of Rs.5,96,2 I .l 64l- and the petitioner is directed to remit the balance amount of Rs.1.46,93,421. Aggrieved by the above said order, petitioner filed statutory appeal vide EpF Appeal No.54 of 2024 under Section 7-l of the Act 19 of 1952, before Respondent No.3- Tribunal. Along u,ith the said appeal, petitioner also filed tw.o interlocuton applications namely I.A.Nos.l and 2 of 2024, und,er Section 7-O of the Act 9 of 1952, seeking to waive the condition of pre- deposit anrount and fbr stay of the operation of the impugned order passed b1, respondent No.1, dated 09.08.2024, till the disposal of the appeal. Ilou,ever, the Respondent No.3-Tribuna[, on

16.12.2024, hcld that the petitioner has not made out a casrtrr complete waivcr of the pre-deposit condition as mentioned under Section 7-O of the Acr 9 of 1952. Therefore, the appeal is admitted subjcct to remitlance of 30oh of the determined amount under Section 7-A of the Act 9 of 1952, within six weeks and on compliance of the pre-deposit condition, the operation of the impugned order is ., suspended till disposal of the appeal. Thereafter, petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025, with a prayer to reduce the pre_deposit amount to 5%, instead of 30Yo, pursuant to the order d,ated 16.12.2024. The Respondent No.3-Tribunal dismissed the said apptication vide its order dated 22.01.2025. Aggrieved by the above said order dated

16.12.2024 and docket order dated 22.01.2025, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.l initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Act 9 of 1952, basing upon the complaint lodged by one Mr.S.Mallesham, who is member of the Central Board of Trustees. The petitioner appeared before respondent No.l, under Section 7_A Inquiry and submifted detailed objections on 27.10.2023, wherein rhe petitioner specifically pleaded that the petitioner,s Company has already remitted an amount of Rs.6,63, 15,0g9/_, for the period from 12/2021 to 02/2023. Respondent No.l, without taking into consideration of the above said objections, determined and passed order under Section 7-A of the Act 9of 52 on 09.0g.2024, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,43,14,584/- and further held that the petitioner has already 4 remitted an amount of Rs.5,96,21 , I 641- and the petitioner is due an amount ol Rs. I ,46.93,42 l/-, though the petitioner remitted an amount ol' Rs.6.63.1 5.089/-. Leamed Senior Counsel further submitted that in support ol I.A.No. I of 2024, petitioner specifically pleaded in the aflldavit about remittance of an amount of Rs.6,63,15,0g9/-. Respondent No.3 w,ithout taking into consideration. of the above said fact, imposed condition. directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the determined arnount under Section 7-A of the Act 9 of 1952. He further submirted that the petitioner hled application vide I.A.No.1 of 2015 to reduce the anrount. I{owever, respondent No.3 without properly considering the material evidence on record dismissed the said application. In such circumstances, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.3 dated 16.12.2024 and,22.01.2025 are liable to be set aside and respondent No.3 ought to have reduced the pre-deposit amount.

6. Per contra, Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2 submittcd thar as per the provisions of the Act 9 of 195i, while filing the EPI] Appeal No.54 of 2024, petitioner ought to have deposited 75%. of the determined amount, under Section 7-A of the Act 9 ol 1952. The Respondent No.3_Tribunal, taking into -i- 5 consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, passed discretionary order on 16.12.2024, in I.A.No.1 of 2024, direcring the petitioner to deposit 30% of the determined amount under Section 7- A ol the Act 9 of 1952. ln such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to question the said discretionary order, invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that after considering the averments made in support of the application, the Respondent No.3-Tribunal rightly imposed condition, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the determined amount and the petitioner is entitled to raise all the grounds in pending appeal and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief much less than the relief sought in this Writ Petition. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Osmania University u Employees, provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and otherst. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.l initiated proceedings conferred under the provisions ofthe Act 9 of 1952, basing upon the complaint I 2024 SCC Online TS 1923 6 n lodged by one Mr.S.Mallesham and passed order on 09.0g.2024, holding thar the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,43,14,584/-, and out of thc said amount, petitioner has already remifted an arnount of Rs.5,96,21,1 641- for the period from 12/2021 to 0212O23 and the petitioner is directed to remit the balance amount of Rs. 1,4(r,93.4211-.'fhe record fuither discloses that aggrieved by the said order" petitioner has filed statutory appeal vide EpF Appeat No.54 of 2024. Along with the said appeal, petitioner has filed two applications namely I.A.Nos.l and 2 of 2024, under Section 7_O of the Act 9 ol 1952. seeking to waive the condition of pre_ deposit amount and for stay olthe operation of the impugned order passed by respondent No.l, dated 09.08.2024, ti[ the disposal of the appeal. In I.A.No.l o12024. petitioner specifically pleaded at para No.ll of the affidavit that thc petitioner remitted the contributions of an amount of Rs.6,63.15,089/- for the period i.e., 1212021 to 0212023 and also filed detailed ob.jections on 17.10.2023, before respondent No.l during the course of 7-A inquiry,. I lowever, respondent No.l, without taking into consideration o1'the said aspect, held that the petitioner remitted only an amount of Rs.5,96.21,1641- and respondent No.l has not given any ' I I I 7 reasons, insofar as the amount remitted by the petitioner l,€., Rs.6,63,15,089/-.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to question the discretionary order passed by respondent No.3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not tenable under law, on the ground that the specific claim of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has not considered the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.l of 2024, especially remitting the contribution amount of Rs.6,63,15,089/- for the period from 12/2021 to2/2023.

9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned orders dated 16.12.2024 and

22.01.2025 without considering the averments made by the petitioner in I.A.No. I of 2024 and the same requires re_consideration.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.3_Tribunal with a direction to consider the I.A.No. I of 2024 afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with [aw, after giving opportunity to both the parties as : I 1 I I ! 8 E early as possible preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy' of this order. I l. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs . Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand close d //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT RE SD/. A.V.S. AD P GI RAR SECTION FFICER -Srr'nlEi-rm Authorrty under Section ZA ol.Eplgnd Mp Act, 1952, Cum Regional p.F. Com mission er-I, Reoional Off rce, 1 2- 1,- 1 st f f .iir, - - ' Patancheru Sanga Reddy District _ SO2Sf9 rne Entorcement Offrcer. Fmployee^s provident Funds Organisation, Reoional Froor Sushe'eram C,.prc* lplian;h;J :d;"# H;j;;,,"'., B,r;,:;., _ i;, J ;5 The Presidrng Officer, Central Government lndustrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, HUDA Comptex. rMJ Ro1d, lturpufrv, uvj"il'orl""soooor one cC lo SRt SRtKANTH HACiHARA-N*A'ar,i]r"t,ifoEubi one cc ro sRr vtJHAy K puNNA, sC FbH eFFbjoEutf one CC ro SRt K ARVTND KUN/AR, sC Fiin iiNirhlidow. topucl Two CD Copies Com plex, To

4. 5. 6. 7. PSK. TJ *- HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.6420 of 2025 pE STAI € 1 q ) o 0 i l'iAB 2025 t a -)> t t) i. $ :::;.;}/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS 1