JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The petitioner-university has filed the instant petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to throw challenge to the legality of the order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P-22), passed by respondent no.3, as well as the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexures P-29), passed by respondent no.1-CGIT.

2. The petitioner-university ('Deemed to be University' under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956) is an educational institute. Through an order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P-22), in an inquiry initiated under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1952'), it was held that the petitioner-university fulfills the criteria to attract the provisions of the said Act, as envisaged under Section 1(3)(b) thereof, so it is covered under the said Act, instead of Section 1(4) thereof. Therefore, section concerned, was instructed to change the coverage from Section 1(4) of the Act of 1952, under which petitioner establishment was earlier got registered, to Section 1(3)(b) thereof, to ensure proper compliance of all eligible employees as per the provision of the said Act. Further, a direction was given to make compliance to the provisions of the Act of 1952, and the schemes framed thereunder, and report within 15 days of the receipt of the order. The department was further held entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 7-C of the Act of 1952, to recover escaped liability. The damages and interest will be levied as per the provisions of Section 14-B and 7-Q of the Act of 1952.

3. The petitioner-university preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2023, under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952. However, the learned appellate authority (CGIT), dismissed the said appeal, on account of maintainability, vide impugned order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-29). Hence, being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, the petitioner-university has approached this Court through the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-university, while drawing attention of this Court towards provisions of Section 7-A of the Act 1952, submitted that it empowers the authority as prescribed therein, to adjudicate, a dispute regarding applicability of the said Act to an establishment, and; to determine the amount due from employer under the provisions of the scheme. For these two purposes the appropriate authority may conduct such inquiry as it may deem necessary.

5. He further submitted that Section 7-I of the Act of 1952, provides that in case any person is aggrieved by any order passed, under Section 7-A(1) can prefer an appeal, therefore, he submits that the statutory appeal is maintainable against an order, wherethrough, the maintainability of the Act upon the establishment has been finally adjudicated. Therefore, order passed by the learned appellate authority (CGIT), requires interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.5, placed reliance upon a judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in “Autogrinx Engineers Private Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner” 2024 (2) WLC 681, to submit that the order dated 15.06.2023, is, in fact, an interlocutory order and until the final amount is assessed by the authority concerned, the petitioner-university cannot prefer an appeal.

7. He also submitted that in case the submission, as made on behalf of the petitioner-university is accepted, it would defeat the basic object of the Act, itself. Rather, it would provide a right to appeal twice to the petitioner-university, and therefore, this would unncessarily cause harassment to the employees.

8. This Court has considered the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has perused the entire case file.

9. Before adjudicating the legality of the impugned orders, lets have a glimpse upon Section 7-A(1) and Section 7-I of the Act of 1952, which are reproduced herein