(BY SRI K N VASUKI v. Assistant P.F. Commissioner1
Case at a glance
Outcome
Quashed
Impugned order is quashed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed.
Judgment
(BY SRI K N VASUKI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I REGIONAL OFFICE, K.R. PURAM, ITI CAMPUS (BENGALURU PLANT), DOORAVANI NAGAR, BENGALURU -560016. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER DTD. 26.11.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CGIT BENGALURU ON THE APPLICATION FOR WAIVER UNDER SECTION 7-O OF THE ACT BENGALURU IN EPF NO.35/2023 (ANNX-F) AND ETC. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:336 WP No. 48 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
#2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru, wherein the application filed by the petitioner to waive pre-deposit for an appeal under Section 7-O of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act of 1952') is rejected with a direction to deposit 20% of the award amount passed under Section 14B of the Act of 1952.
#3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue is squarely covered in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Harbal Research Laboratory vs. Assistant P.F. Commissioner1, as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/S. 1 MANU/SC/1324/2010 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:336 WP No. 48 of 2025 Venkateshwara Garmensts vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II.2
#4. Learned Government Advocate does not dispute the proposition.
#5. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable. There is no requirement to deposit any amount in any appeal challenging the order under Section 14B of the Act of 1952.
#6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed.
#7. The Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal on merits. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 2 W.P.No.14897/2024
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Impugned order is quashed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.