ORDER :

Heard Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P. Shanker Rao Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dr. B. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.3 herein had passed an order under Section -7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘Act, 1952’), dated 28.04.2021. Since it is an appealable order, feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein had filed an appeal under Section - 7-I of the Act, 1952 vide E.P.F. Appeal 35 of 2021. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner herein had also filed an application to waive the condition of deposit of 75% of the disputed amount and also stay petition. Vide order, dated 10.05.2022, the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal) at Hyderabad, admitted the appeal on the condition of the petitioner remitting 40% of the assessed dues with the respondents within a period of one (01) month from the date of said order. Proof of remittance shall be produced on or before the next date of posting. The amount, if any, in excess of the amount accounted in the impugned order shall also be taken into account while computing the remittance under Section - 7 (O) of the Act, 1952. Subject to the said condition, the Tribunal has stayed the impugned order restraining the respondent from taking any coercive action for recovery. The said 40% of the amount would be Rs.4,86,21,621.20ps.

3. Since the petitioner could not comply with the said order by depositing 40% of the assessed dues, it has filed an application vide S.R. No.322 of 2022 on 08.06.2022 before the Tribunal seeking extension of time. There is no Presiding Officer in the said Tribunal. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein had filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.15876 of 2021 challenging the order dated 25.05.2021 passed by respondent No.4 herein under Section - 7A of the Act, 1952.

4. As stated above, the Tribunal has stayed the said impugned award on condition of depositing 40% of the assessed amount, and since the petitioner herein has not complied with the said order, the respondent officials have frozen nineteen (19) accounts of the petitioner at different banks. This Court vide order dated 26.10.2021 in W.P. No.15876 of 2021 directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned order until further orders. According to the petitioner, in violation of the said order, the respondent authorities have frozen the said nineteen (19) accounts of the petitioner at different banks. Therefore, it had filed contempt application. Considering the said facts, this Court vide order dated 18.07.2022 disposed of the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner herein to pursue Appeal, Waiver Application, Extension Application, Stay Application and the Contempt Application. This Court also made it clear that the order passed in the said writ petition will not come in the way of petitioner in pursuing contempt application. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, the said contempt petition vide I.A. No.1146 of 2022 is pending.

5. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have issued impugned prohibitory order dated 21.06.2022 freezing 28 accounts of the petitioner at different banks. Therefore, the present writ petition.

6. In paragraph No.11 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner herein has specifically mentioned the total amount assessed, what would be 40% of the assessed amount and the amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal and the outstanding balance amount. According to Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner herein had paid Rs.2,18,37,936 and Rs.48,82,084.38