The High Court exercised its jurisdiction to condone a minor delay in filing an appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, remanding the matter for a hearing on merits to ensure justice, provided a partial deposit was made to prevent coercive action.

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 read with the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 seeking following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Presiding OfÏcer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court/ EPF Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dated 17.04.2024 and 7A order dated 12.10.2023 in the interest of justice;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the respondent no 2 in 7A proceedings and also notice issued by the respondent No.3 dated 05.04.2024 as well as order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 12.10.2023 in the interest of justice;

(C) Any other and further reliefs may be granted in favour of petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner is a Company engaged in valve manufacturing. That, one Enforcement OfÏcer, Geetaben M. Nayar had visited the petitioner on 03.07.2019, 05.07.2019 and also on 12.07.2019 where she had found that seven employees, receiving Rs.6500/- (before 01.09.2014) and more than Rs.15000/- as basic wages from 01.09.2014 were wrongly excluded under the P.F. Act. Therefore, said OfÏcer had instructed the petitioner to deduct P.F. from these seven workers and send to her the corresponding challan with regard to the same. That, the said ofÏcer had observed in the salary registers of September, 18 and May, 19 that the petitioner had split basic wages into HRA, transport allowance, medical allowance, special allowance and other allowances to reduce P.F. liabilities. That, the petitioner had contract with Salamati Security and Personal Force Pvt. Ltd. for supplying guards, having their own separate P.F. No.50756 and therefore, said Enforcement OfÏcer had instructed petitioner to verify P.F. deductions for security guards from said Salamati Security and Personal Force Pvt. Ltd. along with checking P.F. Challans and ECR. That, the petitioner had also contract with Gunavantiben Gohel and Bharat Gohel housekeeping, and therefore, said ofÏcer had also instructed petitioner to deduct P.F. from this contractor as well. That, during thorough examination, the said Enforcement OfÏcer had not made demand for any P.F. dues against the petitioner in her visit book. That, the petitioner therefore, had informed the said ofÏcer/authority about P.F. compliance and the coverage of all eligible employees, but they instructed remittance for 7 employees without providing their names. That, thereafter, inquiry proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act was initiated against the petitioner wherein respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.10.2023, directed the petitioner to pay lump sum of Rs.67,67,894.00 as P.F. dues without any calculation. That, consequently the petitioner filed PF Appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad seeking prayer of setting aside the order dated 12.10.2023 passed u