High Court · 2025

flecqv_ery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization Regional Office H. No. 12- l , Firsl Floor, Susheeram Complex, Patancheru, Sangareddy District 502319 The Branch lrlanager, lClCl Bank Ltd, 6-2-1012, Tgv Mansions, Opp lstitufion of Engineers, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 500004 The Branch_ [\/anager, lClCl Bank Ltd, 6-2-1012, Tgv Mansions, Opp lnstitution of Engineers, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 500004 - ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not considering the r.r I) r,) ;entatio n submitted by the petitioner datedC6.01.2025 and

07.O1 .2025 in'rLe :;yririt instead passing various coerci're crders as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, v o ati\() of principles of natural justice and cons;equr:ntly direct the Respondent No. :l lr ,rllow the Petitioner to repay the outstanding Cues in twenty (20) monthly inste ll.r:nts. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition u nrle- Siection 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircu m sti,rnces stated in the affidavit fil€d in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to Suspend the ordr;rs; lJo. TS/OTC/RECYIZ-111719218F Orderl.2O2zl dated 16-01- 2025 and orde' \:, TS/PTC/Recy/Z-111719218F ordeil2124l 677 daled 31-12- 2024 issued by thr :l " Respondent to the sth and 6th Resl>ondents respectively. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Counsel forthe Res;pondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDI,A Counsel for the Res;lnndent Nos. 2 & 4: SMT. RACHNA KUMARI, S.C. FOR EPFO Counsel for the Res,pondent Nos.3, 5 & 6: - The Court made the 'ollowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.-1,2539 of 2025 ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:_ "to dtclnre tha ocl,ion of Respondent No.2 rn nol consideing lhe reprcsentntion subnt .el by the petitioner daled 06.01 .2025 and 0t.01.2025 in tru arbtrnry,,u*,,ffi '3y::,::#,r;";:::;i:::;;::;::,;i#i:i consequently direct the Responfuni No.Z io- ottoru the petitioner to repay the outstanding dues in ttoenty eOl*""iw instaLlments.,, .lhe

2. Brief lacts in this writ petition are that petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act,7956, under name and style as " M/ s.VBC Fcrro Alloys Ltd,,, engaged in manufacturing of ferro alloys The case of the petitioner is that it has been regurarry paying a, the statutory ducs' incruding the provident funds and had never been a defaulter from the last 30 _years. However, due to severe power shortage in the state during 20"12-2013 and <Iue to resrrictions by DISCoM', there was hike in the tariff' with no price rectification of finai product and the petitioner company had suffered losscs, hence, the unit was closed in the month of August, 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner company on 30.06.2074, under Section 13(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 7947 read with Rule 60 of the then A.p. Indushial Rules, 1958 entered into an agreement with the labour union representatives ancl settlecl the wages of the workers. Further case is that respondent No.2 issued notice regarcling the pending provident fund dues of the workers. Thereafter, the petitioner apprised the fact of settiement with the workers and ) after due :on;itl':rtrtion, the respondent No 2 oide olcl'lr bearing No.TSlPTC/ E Il' r t719214741 dated 08'05 2015 directed the 1>etitroner to pay Rs.7,21,84,23'.'. / :rt'"arcls assessment for the period from 047'12012 ro 1212073' within 15 d rvs i'orn the clate of rcceipt of the order' S 'rb-<c':luently the out of Rs"t'?1")l'21'21- paid an petitioner le.t\r nii an amount of Rs'7 amount of Ii,. t. :\,91,988/-, and inspite of the same, r:sPcndent No 2 under Sccttt,r 1+u and 7Q of Employees I''or-it lent Fund issu:d order and Mis:ell,rrcous Provisions Act' '67 '78i1- Ig52 - (",' 17192 l DPCelt/ 14Bl Orde t s / 2014 / 36806 late :1 06 11 2015' No. APISRC' i " wherein re lpo l( ('nt No 2 imposing interest and pcn:r tr' lirected thc petitioner to l).'. ,rn amount of Rs 93'48'695/- Therealter' thc petitioner on 22.06.20L6 rlad : r:prescntation and rcquested respondcnt l'lo 2 to w'aive the penalties, lro\^ ('r/rlr. rcspondent No 2 issued the proclama iolr of sale proceedingr; L'tra,ring No AP/SRO/PTC/77192/Re<'\'/201bI 7514 dated 16.02.20L6. C ra 1:nging the same' petitioner filed W'F No'9-143 of 2016 and this Court as tr intcrim measure directed the resPolrdent No 2 therein to consid.er thc p:tLtioncr's representatiotl dated' 22 02 2016 v"ithi-r a period of two(2) weeks. il lwcver, the saicl representation was disposed o: and without giving ar trp.rp'ortunity to the petitioner anothelrc'tice bearing No.TSIRO7 l'l r - 1 Recv \L-1) / 77192 1 2023-24 1 97 dated 03 0'i 20: 3 lr'as issued to the petitio 1('r Lea"r'r -'tl counsel for the petitioner submit ttrat the I retitioner zide 3. representa tior i, lated 07.12 2023 ancl 09 09 2024 rciterated :hc frctual aspects' l however, wiihout considering the same the respondent No.2 issuetl show cause notice bearing No.TS,zROlfJTC /77192/Recy_Cp 25/ 2024/ Sg9 dated 22.77.2024, to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner fired w.p.No.3 4950 0t 2024 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 72.12.2024. Challenging, the order dated 72.72.2024 in W.p.No.3495 0 of 2024, petitioner preferred W.A.No.1439 of 2024 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court oitle ludgrnent dated 37.12.2024 passed the following order:_ .The "10. In view of the afrtresaid submission and in the facts ancl circumstances of the case, the order dated 12.t2.2024 pasied bv the ", "* learne.d Single Judge in W.p.No.3a950 of 2024 is m"a,p";""-" I I appellanl is gt.unttd rhe liherty tLt file o ,"pty th, notice dated . 22.11...2021 on or before 06.01.20)5. It "is furrh[r directed that the appellant shall appear before the Regional provitlent Fund Commissioner on 06.01.2025 along with ih" uply The negion;t P rovident Fund Comm iss ioner,.afte iionria"rirg tii reply submitted by the appellant, is granted the libirty to pro"rraf,r'rihn, in the matter in accordance v,ith llw.',

4. Subsequently, the peritioner submitted a reply on 06.07.2025, wherein the erstwhile director Sri pV Rao, under duress and coercion agreed to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/_ towards the penalty and interest dues and issued PDCs for the balancc amount of Rs.25,16,333/_. Learned coursel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner issued a demand draft of Rs.2,00,000/- towards interest under scction 7Q and aide representations dated 06.07.2025 and 07.07.2025 requested respondent Nos.2 and 4 to recover the balance amount in twenty (20) instalments. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2, without considering the petitioner,s representation dated 06.01.2025 and 07.07.2025 issued order Nos.TSIOTC/RECy /Z_7/17192/BFOrder/2024 L 4 dated 1ri ( 1 2125 and TSlPTC/Rccv/Z-7/77792/tForr,let,r'.'.024/677 dated .1

31.-12.2024 t(, r espondent Nos.5 and 6 to remit an anlourrt of Rs.1,06,31,369/ - from the p,:tilrcner's account. Aggrieved by the samr:, irr,:senr rvrit petition is filed.

5. Tt.orr11h r.arious grounds are raised in thir; u'r it p,rtition, learned counsel f rr t rc i)ctitioner resLricts his prayer seeking a clir:c I ic n to respondent No.4 to crr sr(l3r the pctitioner's rePrcsentations datccl 0Z 01.21125 and recover the balarr:e arncunt in twcnty (20) instalments.

6. Hr:alcl earned counsel for the petitioner arral ncnrr appeared for responclents.

7. Uy,ct r 1r,r-usal of the proceeding sheet, it is noticccl that ctn 28.04.2025,

29.04.2025: nr1 .10.06.2025, learned standing counsel appt;ring for respondent Nos.2 anrl . :i()lght tin-re for getting irrstructions ancl "ilin1; cor- ntcr. However, till date n3i.h( r nstructions arc placcd norcounter is lilccl

8. Havin: :rnsidered thc above facts and circunstancers, in view of the submissicrr nrric b1, learned counsel appearing for th: Lretilio|er and without expressrn;; ;rr,',' opinion on the merits o[ the case, this 'vrit petirion is disposed of directir.rg 1h,: respondent No.4 to dispose the pet;tion -.r's .epresentations dated 06.[,1.2r)2 j and 07.01.2025 and after giving fair oppor turri.y of hearing to thc petitionlr , the responded No.4 shall pass appropriate or lers strictly in accordance ,r,itl.r la.n,, as expeditiously as possible, pr<,[erablr ,,,ithin a periocl of two (02) tvo-'<s from today and communicate the sa,nc h) th€ petitioner. 5

9. Accordingly this writ petition IS disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha stand crosed. No order as to costs IITRUE COPYII SD/-P. PONNA ASSISTANT RE RISHNA ISTRAR SECT N OFFICER ff#fi :#ff 5Llilffi#Effii"r'""sr'B?ffi hynion of lndia, Ministrv rund Organization, To, 1 'H,tj",ff :i,,f#rJ[mi]f iif*F"ryix;#.":.""rj f,m:n:JH:,,:"r]i

3. The Conciliation Officer r-auouiSirig;h;t"r"bt?f "?"^?:.trrPffi il,ff iln;;noraabour,Departmentor 'iki,fr"J!?,?Tff :i..,#,:"J:ff 5. One CC to SRt RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJ|, Advocate tOpUCl t "J;"J,8"#J"Ttf, rBr"rSi to sRl GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy Soticitor Generat of tndia jA:f, :1i1:J,#:,.:"*1

7. One CC to SIVT. RACHNA KU|VAR, S.C 8. Two CD Copies for EPFO tOpUCj MP GJP CC TODAY HICi,H COURT DATED:1i1410612025 .=t.-:i, l-ia n: ( j 't4 o() 2I ,tl', ?0?5 z .1)': ORDER WP.No.12539 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRII"PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /2 4 J7 ftrtt