Recovery order under EPF Act Section 8-F(3)(i) quashed for lacking prior reasonable notice and hearing opportunity; eight-year-old notice stale; natural justice mandatory in quasi-judicial recovery proceedings despite pending appeal restoration.

JUDGMENT :

PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By seeking indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Municipal Council, Pusad has assailed the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the respondent no.2-Recovery Officer, Regional Provident Fund Office, Akola purportedly under Section 8-F(3)(i) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’).

3. The background facts leading to the instant petition are succinctly put below:-

i. The respondent no.1-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner had issued a summons under Section 7-A of the Act on 12.04.2023 to the petitioner-Municipal Council to appear and submit details of record for conducting enquiry regarding payment of dues of provident fund to their employees for the period from 08.01.2011 to March-2013.

ii. The show cause notices dated 06.02.2016 and 19.05.2016 also came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to appear for hearing in the matter.

iii. On 04.05.2017, the respondent no.1 passed an order under Section 7-A of the Act and held that the petitioner-Municipal Council is liable for payment of the provident fund dues of the employees for the period from 08.01.2011 to August-2016, to the tune of Rs.8,52,33,497/-.

iv. On 14.06.2017, a notice under Section 8-F of the Act came to be issued.

v. The petitioner challenged the order of imposition of liability vide Writ Petition no.4014 of 2017 before this Court in which this Court passed an interim order dated 29.06.2017 and granted stay to the impugned order.

vi. By order dated 04.07.2022, the writ petition came to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act within six weeks and the interim order was directed to be continued for six weeks.

vii.On 18.08.2022, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Tribunal, Nagpur alongwith a separate application under Section 7-D of the Act for stay alongwith a separate application under Section 7-O of the Act for exemption to deposit as per the liberty granted by the High Court.

viii. The appeal was heard by the Tribunal on 23.01.2023 and thereafter it was adjourned for several dates.

ix. On 15.10.2025, the appeal came to be dismissed in default. x. On 24.11.2025, the petitioner attempted to file an application for restoration of the appeal but it was not filed, as alleged by the petitioner.

xi. On 08.12.2025, the respondent no.2 passed an order under Section 8-F(3)(i) of the Act seeking recovery of the amount.

xii. On 09.12.2025, an amount of Rs.3,65,86,242/- came to be withdrawn from the accounts of the petitioner-Municipal Council held in State Bank of India and the Punjab National Bank, allegedly for recovery of provident fund dues.

xiii. The petitioner has alleged that on the same day, i.e. 09.12.2025, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal by filing an application for restoration alongwith condonation of delay and it is alleged that the said application was not accepted.

xiv. On 10.12.2025, the application for restoration filed by the petitioner-Municipal Council was accepted by the Tribunal and it was directed to be registered with an order to issue notice to the other side. The said application for restoration is pending.

xv. On 11.12.2025, the petitioner-Municipal Council filed the instant