Order on Board

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2025(Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Bilaspur under the provisions of Section 7Q of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short Act, 1952), whereby the Commissioner determined dues and interest levied on account of purported delayed remittance of provident fund contributions. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 16.03.2026 and 26.03.02026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 8F of the Act, 1952 and the order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/7), passed under the provisions of Section 14B of the Act, 1952.

2. Ms. Ali would submit that on 04.09.2025 one Mr. Sumit Sinha appeared before Commissioner on behalf of establishment and requested for some more time to verify calculation sheet and matter was adjourned for 23.09.2025. On 23.09.2025, one Mr. Shams Tabrej Khan proprietor of establishment appeared and again sought time to verify calculation sheet and it was adjourned for 13.10.2025. On 13.10.2025 none appeared and the Commissioner passed final order.

Ms. Ali would submit that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. She would submit that time was sought by the petitioner herein before the Commissioner to ascertain the entries made in the calculation sheet, but the Commissioner without affording sufficient opportunity, in absence of the petitioner, passed final order, which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without service of notice to the petitioner order dated 16.03.2026 and 26.03.2026 (Annexure P/2) was passed in contravention to the provisions of Section 8F of the Act of 1952. She would submit that Section 14B of the Act of 1952 can be exercised where the employer makes default in payment of any contribution to the fund. She would contend that present is not a case where the petitioner committed default in payment of contribution rather there was some delay in its part, and therefore, the authority concerned exceeded its jurisdiction while passing order under this provision. She would pray to quash the order impugned.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is also contended that on 04.09.2025 and 23.09.2025 Mr. Sumit Sinha and Mr. Shams Tabrej Khan appeared on behalf of the establishment, but failed to appear on 13.10.2025, and therefore, the learned Commissioner passed order on merits on said date. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi would submit that the order dated 17.11.2025(Annexure P/7) is appealable according to the provisions of Section 7I of the Act of 1952. They would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. Perusal of the order impugned would show that the petitioner corporation is covered under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was duty of establishment to deposit contribution in respect of all of its eligible employees engaged in or in connected with the work of establishment. On monthly basis, the petitioner failed to make payment of its contribution; therefore, a proceeding was initiated by the Commissioner.

6. Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 reads as under :-

“7Q. Interest payable by the employer. —The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the Scheme on any amount due from him under this Act from the date on which the amount has become so due till the date of its actual payment:

Provided that higher rate of interest specified in the Scheme shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank.”

7. Summon was issued to the