The court held that recovery actions under the 1952 Act cannot proceed while appeals are pending, ensuring due process.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is common in both these writ petitions. In W.P (C)

No.1002/2026 the petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that though appeals are pending against Exts.P1 and P3 orders imposing damages in terms of the provisions contained in Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act), the authorities have proceeded to attach bank accounts of the petitioner. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery in terms of the provisions contained in Section 8F of the 1952 Act can only be in respect of orders which have become final and not in respect of orders which are pending in appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to obtain any order in the appeals filed on account of the fact that there is no Presiding Officer in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (the Appellate Authority).

2. In W.P (C) No.1091/2026 it is the case of the petitioner that the demand for interest in terms of Ext.P2 order under Section 7Q of 1952 Act has been paid in full as is evident from Ext.P3. It is submitted that no appeal has been filed against the order under Section 14B (imposing damages) which is produced as Ext.P1 in W.P (C) No.1091/2026. However, it is submitted that the demand is only a sum of Rs.22,37,706/- and presently an amount of Rs.27,28,219/- has already been recovered from the bank accounts. It is submitted that since the demand arising out of Ext.P1 in W.P (C) No.1091/2026 is the only demand that can be recovered in terms of the provisions contained in Section 8F of the 1952 Act and since amounts larger than the amount of demand in Ext.P1 in W.P (C) No.1091/2026 have already been recovered, the petitioner may be permitted to operate its bank accounts which are, presently the subject matter of attachment by the Provident Fund authorities.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Department does not dispute the fact that against the orders produced as Exts.P1 and P3 in W.P (C) No.1002/2026 appeals are pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. He also does not dispute the fact that the demand for interest under Section 7Q in Ext.P2 in W.P (C) No.1091/2026 has already been paid by the petitioner. He also agrees that the demand in Ext.P1 in W.P (C) No.1091/2026 is a sum of Rs.22,37,706 and an amount of Rs.27,28,219/- has been recovered from the bank accounts of the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both these cases and the learned counsel appearing for Provident Fund Department, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances noticed above, further recovery in terms of the orders produced as Exts.P1 and P3 in W.P (C) No.1002/2026 have to be suspended pending consideration of the appeals by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. I am also of the opinion that since the demand for interest in terms of Section 7Q under Ext.P2 order produced in W.P (C) No.1091/2026 have already been paid and since the amount larger than the amounts demanded in Ext.P1 order in W.P (C) No.1091/2026 have already been recovered, the Provident Fund Organization can be directed to release the attachment over the bank accounts of the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, these writ petitions will stand disposed of directing that the attachment proceedings (Exts.P5 and P6 in W.P (C) No.1002/2026 and Exts.P4 and P5 in W.P (C) No.1091/2026) shall be withdrawn forthwith by the competent authority. The demands which are subject to Exts.P1 and P3 in W.P (C) No.1002/2026 shall not be enforced till the stay petitions filed by the petitioners before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal are taken up and considered by