High Court · 2025

1. Heard Ms. Jahnavi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 & 2 in both the petitions.

2. The order sheet of Writ-C No.39298 of 2025 reflects that an objection was raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding entertainability of the said writ petition in view of availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal. However, the Court noted the argument of petitioner side to the effect that the order imposing damages has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and then granted time to the learned Standing counsel to obtain instructions.

3. Instructions have been produced by the learned standing counsel stating that the order impugned has not been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, rather a notice was issued to the petitioner that was also replied by the petitioner. Further, reference to first paragraph of the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 has been made where issuance of notice has been recorded and, in second paragraph of the impugned order, submissions of Sh. Nathi Ram, representative of the petitioner establishment were noted during the course of hearing.

4. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for petitioner submits that though notice was issued and the petitioner was also heard, however, since the ultimate figure of damages arrived at by the authority is based upon miscalculation and that the deposits made by the petitioner upto year 2023 have not been taken into consideration nor has any speaking order been passed, the said act amounts to violation of basic requirements of law as noted in authority cited by the counsel and, hence, this Court should quash the impugned order and remand the matter to the authority.

5. In the cited authority, I find that facts of the case were entirely different inasmuch there was an admission with regard to non- issuance of notice and non-service of report upon the petitioner in that case and also non grant of opportunity of hearing. That is why, the writ petition was entertained.

6. From other cited authorities, though it reflects that the authority should pass a speaking order and give the reasons in support of it when it proceeds to determine damages as per Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund (E.P.F.) Act, 1952, in the instant case, the Court is of the view that the matter requires computation of damages after taking consideration the deposits made by the petitioner.

7. As far as the order impugned is concerned, the authority has computed deposits made from June, 2019 to April, 2023 vide Annexure SA-I to the supplementary affidavit, which prima facie appear to be delayed payments.

8. In the facts of the case, this Court is not in a position to comment upon rightful or wrongful calculations made by the authorities as it requires analysis of complicated questions of fact and once the Court is satisfied that the principles of natural justice were not violated and there is an authority under the statute to decide an appeal, this Court is not inclined to entertain challenge to the order impugned dated 10.10.2024 under Section 14-B at the first instance in the writ petition.

9. The Writ -C No.39298 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 10.10.2024 under Section 14-B in appeal which, if filed within a period of one month from today, shall not be dismissed as barred by limitation but shall be heard and decided on its own merits.

10. As far as connected Writ-C No.7424 of 2025, the submission is that the order impugned has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 7-Q of the Act against which no appeal lies and, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable.

11. Learned Standing Counsel, has relied upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others 2013 16 SCC 1 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some what identical circumstances has held that orders passed on same date under Section 14-B and Section 7-Q can be treated as composite order and appellable.

12. Considering the provisions of Section 7-Q of the Act and the orders impugned in both petitions which have been passed on the same day i.e. on 10.10.2024, the order under Section 7-Q is dependent upon the calculations to be made by the appellate authority in relation to matter under Section 14-B of the Act. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain a challenge to the order under Section 7-Q keeping the proceedings under Section 14-B before the appellate authority pending and, therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, having found the order under Section 7-Q in consequence of the order under Section 14-B, it is observed that the amount computed under the order dated

10.10.2024 under Section 7-Q would be dependent upon the final adjudication to be made by the appellate authority against the order under Section 14-B of the Act.

13. Writ-C No.7424 of 2025, is accordingly, disposed off with the observations that the amount demanded from the petitioner under Section 7-Q under the order dated 10.10.2024 would be kept in abeyance till disposal of appeal against the order dated 10.10.2024 under Section 14-B (impugned in Writ-C No.39298 of 2024).

14. It is expected from the authority concerned to carefully analyse the entire evidence produced by the respective parties with regard to the demand raised and payment made and then pass speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of filing of appeal as per paragraph no.9 of this order. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Sanjeet SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Ms. Jahnavi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 & 2 in both the petitions.

2. The order sheet of Writ-C No.39298 of 2025 reflects that an objection was raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding entertainability of the said writ petition in view of availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal. However, the Court noted the argument of petitioner side to the effect that the order imposing damages has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and then granted time to the learned Standing counsel to obtain instructions.

3. Instructions have been produced by the learned standing counsel stating that the order impugned has not been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, rather a notice was issued to the petitioner that was also replied by the petitioner. Further, reference to first paragraph of the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 has been made where issuance of notice has been recorded and, in second paragraph of the impugned order, submissions of Sh. Nathi Ram, representative of the petitioner establishment were noted during the course of hearing.

4. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for petitioner submits that though notice was issued and the petitioner was also heard, however, since the ultimate figure of damages arrived at by the authority is based upon miscalculation and that the deposits made by the petitioner upto year 2023 have not been taken into consideration nor has any speaking order been passed, the said act amounts to violation of basic requirements of law as noted in authority cited by the counsel and, hence, this Court should quash the impugned order and remand the matter to the authority.

5. In the cited authority, I find that facts of the case were entirely different inasmuch there was an admission with regard to non- issuance of notice and non-service of report upon the petitioner in that case and also non grant of opportunity of hearing. That is why, the writ petition was entertained.

6. From other cited authorities, though it reflects that the authority should pass a speaking order and give the reasons in support of it when it proceeds to determine damages as per Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund (E.P.F.) Act, 1952, in the instant case, the Court is of the view that the matter requires computation of damages after taking consideration the deposits made by the petitioner.

7. As far as the order impugned is concerned, the authority has computed deposits made from June, 2019 to April, 2023 vide Annexure SA-I to the supplementary affidavit, which prima facie appear to be delayed payments.

8. In the facts of the case, this Court is not in a position to comment upon rightful or wrongful calculations made by the authorities as it requires analysis of complicated questions of fact and once the Court is satisfied that the principles of natural justice were not violated and there is an authority under the statute to decide an appeal, this Court is not inclined to entertain challenge to the order impugned dated 10.10.2024 under Section 14-B at the first instance in the writ petition.

9. The Writ -C No.39298 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 10.10.2024 under Section 14-B in appeal which, if filed within a period of one month from today, shall not be dismissed as barred by limitation but shall be heard and decided on its own merits.

10. As far as connected Writ-C No.7424 of 2025, the submission is that the order impugned has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 7-Q of the Act against which no appeal lies and, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable.

11. Learned Standing Counsel, has relied upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others 2013 16 SCC 1 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some what identical circumstances has held that orders passed on same date under Section 14-B and Section 7-Q can be treated as composite order and appellable.

12. Considering the provisions of Section 7-Q of the Act and the orders impugned in both petitions which have been passed on the same day i.e. on 10.10.2024, the order under Section 7-Q is dependent upon the calculations to be made by the appellate authority in relation to matter under Section 14-B of the Act. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain a challenge to the order under Section 7-Q keeping the proceedings under Section 14-B before the appellate authority pending and, therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, having found the order under Section 7-Q in consequence of the order under Section 14-B, it is observed that the amount computed under the order dated

10.10.2024 under Section 7-Q would be dependent upon the final adjudication to be made by the appellate authority against the order under Section 14-B of the Act.

13. Writ-C No.7424 of 2025, is accordingly, disposed off with the observations that the amount demanded from the petitioner under Section 7-Q under the order dated 10.10.2024 would be kept in abeyance till disposal of appeal against the order dated 10.10.2024 under Section 14-B (impugned in Writ-C No.39298 of 2024).

14. It is expected from the authority concerned to carefully analyse the entire evidence produced by the respective parties with regard to the demand raised and payment made and then pass speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of filing of appeal as per paragraph no.9 of this order. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Sanjeet SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad