The absence of a Presiding Officer at the appellate authority deprives the petitioner of statutory remedies, justifying judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed alleging that despite the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2025 in W.P(C) No.46595 of 2025 suspending the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner, certain amounts were recovered from the petitioner by proceeding against the bank account of the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Department would submit that the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.46595 of 2025 is dated 16.12.2025. It is submitted that the demand draft issued by the State Bank of India is dated 15.12.2025 and such demand draft was accepted and processed without being aware of the judgment of Court in W.P(C)No.46595 of 2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is put to serious prejudice, injury and hardship as the petitioner is not in a position to challenge the order issued under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘the 1952 Act’), out of which the demand arises, before the Appellate Authority, which is the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam as there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal for the past nearly 4 years. In other proceedings before this Court, I was informed by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that a Presiding Officer had been appointed to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam and that the Officer appointed was expected to take charge shortly. This submission was made in the month of December 2025 and a copy of the order appointing a Presiding Officer was also placed before me. However, when this matter was taken up, I had enquired with the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India as to whether the Officer had taken charge, it was informed that the Officer, who was appointed had expressed inability to take charge. As a result of which, the Government is now forced to conduct a fresh selection process. From the submission of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, it is clear that further time will be needed to make appointment to the post of Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. In the meanwhile, as noticed above, the amount payable by the petitioner in terms of the proceedings concluded under of the 1952 Act have been recovered from the Bank account of the petitioner.

4. When an appellate remedy is provided under the statute, the person aggrieved by any proceeding has a right to avail such an appellate remedy. For nearly 4 years, there has been no Presiding Officer at the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. As a result of this, the petitioner is unable to avail the statutory remedy. The petitioner also has a case before this Court that the amount recovered was from the working capital of the petitioner and the recovery is causing serious prejudice to the business of the petitioner. Though it is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Department that the amounts now sought to be recovered are amounts adjudicated as due from the petitioner under Section 7A of the 1952 Act and also that the order in question was passed as early as in the year 2022, I am of the opinion that the failure to appoint a Presiding Officer to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner is unable to avail the statutory remedy. Since I had already granted a stay of further proceedings for recovery while disposing of W.P(C)No.46595 of 2025 and since it is not possible for the petitioner to obtain any order from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (the Appellate Authority) within a short time and since the recovery has already been effected, I am