High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, Rep. by Secretary. The Employee Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, cum Central Government lndustrial Tribunal at Hyderabad. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, (RO-ll) Madhapur, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, No.3-4-763, Barkatpura Chaman,' Hydeiabad- 5Cj0 027, Telan jana. Jfg Q1an9h Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Jublee Hill Branch, No.8-2- 2931821a1237, Plot No No.23Z Road No. 36, Jubilee Hill Co-Operative !^o^u^sing Society, Survey No. 10211 , Circle 10, Jubilee Hi[, GHMC Hyd'erabad- 500034. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in freezing the bank Current account 9313769048 in KOTAK MAHTNDRA BANK JUBLEE HTLLS Branch(4th Respondent) when the appeal filed against the order of the 3rd respondent is pending and without taking up the miscellaneous filed along with the appeal is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of provisions of the EPF and Mp Act,1952 and consequenfly direct the respondents to instruct the Kotak Bank to allow the petitioner company todoitsfinancialtranSisCtionbyliftingtheseizeroftheaccountofthepetitioner company. IA NO :1OF 2O25 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court maY ber pleased to direct the respondents to instruct the Kotak Bank (4th Respondent) to allow the petitionercompanytorloitsbusinessfinancialtransactionbyliftingtheseizerof the account of the petitioner company' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S'SRIDHAR Counsel forthe Respondent No'1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DY. SOLICITOR GEN' OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No'2 & 3: SRI G'VENKATESHWARLU' SC FOR EPF Counsel forthe ResPondent No'4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JuSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.7834 of 2O25 ORDER: This writ petition is hled to declare the action of respondent No.2 in freezing the bank current account bearing No.93 13769048 in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, when the appeal filed against the order of respondent No.3 1S pending and without taking up the miscellaneous file along with the appeal AS illegal and arbitrary and to direct respondent No.4/Bank to allow the petitioner company to do its financial transaction by lifting the seizer of the account of the petitioner company.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that petitioner is a private limited company having its registered ofhce at Magna Park View Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, which is in the business of real estate designs and has about more than 200 employees and are regularly remitting employers share of provident fund to the respondent without any default till date. It is submitted that respondent No.3 i.e., Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (RO-III) has initiated proceedings behind the back of the petitioner 2 under Section la(b) of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act' hereinafter) on the ground that the company has defaulted in paying dues with regard to (i) The provident fund contributions and administrati'ue charges towards the EPF under Section 6 of the Act read with Para 38 of the EPF Scheme. 1952. (ii) The Pension Fund Contributions under Section 6(A) of the Act rf w para 3 of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (iii) Employees Deposit Linked Insr:rance Fund Contributions and Administrative Charges towards Insurance Fund under Section 6-C of the Act r/w para 8 of the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976.

3. The main grievalce of the petitioner is tha.t they came to know with regard to the aforesaid proceedings on

06.O8.2024 while checking the Company's website. Therea-fter, pretitioner/company has contested the matter and the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (RO-IID, Hyderabad has passed orders on 29.1O.2024 under Section 14(b) of th.e Act imposing damages amounting to I 3 Rs.52,81,207 l- directing the petitioner to pay the same in the respective account of EPFO, Hyderabad maintained by State Bank of India through net banking within a period of 60 days from the said date, failing which action sha_ll be ta-ken under Section 8 of the Act to recover the amount.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the said proceedings, petitioner's company has preferred an appeal before EPF Appellate Tribuna-l cum Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 7(ll of the Act along with Interim Application on

20.O2.2O25 for suspension of the operation of proceedings dated 29.10.2024 and the matter stood adjourned to

10.O3.2025 without passing any order. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 have passed a prohibitory order under Section 8F(3)(i) of the Act dated 05.03.2025 directing the petitioner/Compaly to pay Rs.78, 17,631 /- and a copy of the said order was sent to respondent No.4/Balk. By virtue of the said order, respondent No.4/Bank has freezed the account of the petitioner. As a result of freezing the said account, the account balance was kept on hold 4 preventing any further transactions' Questioning the same' the present writ petition is frled'

5. Learned standing counsel for EPF appearrng on behalf of res,pondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that since no orders were passed in the stay application in Appeal frled by the petl.tioner/Company, petitioner ought to have pursued thr: appeal and obtained appropriate order' however, ins;tead of doing the same, the petitioner has approached r:his Court by way of this writ petition'

6. Per contra, learned counsei for the petitioner submits thal- as the entire account is freezed by the Bank' the petitioner is unable to discharge their day to day obligations and is not able to pay the salaries of the employee and pray this Court to pass appropriate orders to that effect. 7 . Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos'2 and 3 Perused the record \ \ 5

8.' Since, the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the EpF Appellate Tribunal cum Central Government Industrial Tribuna-l and that there is a prohibitory order dated 05.03.2025 demanding an amount of Rs.78,17,631 / -, and the petitioner is unable to discharge his day to day obligations on account of freezing the Bank account, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.4/Bank to keep the amount of Rs.7g,17,631/_ stated in the prohibitory order to the credit of respondent No.3 till the petitioner pursue his remedy in the appeal and de_ freeze the account of the petitioner/Company enabling the petitioner to meet their day to day financial commitments.. It is made clear that respondent No.3 shall not withdraw the said amount until specific orders.are passed in pending statutory appeal. It is also made clear that respondent No.4 shall follow the orders passed in the statutory appeal Iiled before EPF Appellate Tribunal cum Central Government Industria-l Tribuna].

9. With the consent of learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of. 6 Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASS]STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, "N 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, Union of India. 2. The Employee Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, cum Central Government ECTION OFFICER lndustrial Tribunal at Hyderabad.

3. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, (RO-ll) Madhapur, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, No.3-4-763, Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad- 50O 027, Telangana. 4. The Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Jubliee Hill Branch, No.8-2- 293l\2lal237, Plot No No.237, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hill Co-Operative Housing Society, Survey No. 10211 , Circle 10, Jubilee Hill, GHMC Hyderabad- 500034.

5. One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI G.VENKATESHWARLU, SC FOR EPF [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOPUC]

8. Two CD Copie:; BSR BS 5 !E !!! CC TODAY 1vtE 9?'A I€ q J o 1 7 |llAn 2025 t:" t + g-o 055 p41CB P o ! HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312025 ORDER WP.No.7834 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,a 6gw 9 $ i I