Remand for fresh adjudication under EPF Act Sections 7A/7B due to failure to consider petitioner's documents and payments.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

21.01.2026 passed by the respondent under Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby the order dated 17.06.2022 passed under Section 7A of the Act determining a liability /dues of Rs.1,70,07,659/- against the petitioner was affirmed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act was conducted for the relevant period i.e. from 01.09.2014 to 31.05.2019, pursuant to which, the original authority vide its order dated 17.06.2022 determined a sum of Rs.1,70,07,659/- as total dues. It is the grievance of the petitioner that at that stage, the petitioner was not provided opportunity either to produce salary statements for April 2015 to May 2019 or to make oral and written submissions. In the said order dated 17.06.2022, it has been stated that in the event of failure to remit the aforesaid amount, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order, further proceedings will be initiated for attachment of movable and immovable properties.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.06.2022, the petitioner had filed a review petition under Section 7B before the respondent. Confirming the order passed under Section 7A of the Act, the revisional authority passed an order dated 21.01.2026, which is impugned herein. It is the further case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.47,98,723/- has already been paid towards the alleged dues and a Memo has been filed to that effect. Challenging the order dated 21.01.2026, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the authorities under Sections 7A and 7B have failed to properly adjudicate the actual workings and calculations submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that despite production of relevant documents and proof of remittances, the same were not considered in proper perspective and the respondent has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the documents and submissions of the petitioner.

5. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted the respondent has erred in arriving at a conclusion of upholding the order passed in the 7A proceedings, which was based on an incomplete wage register. He further pointed out that the petitioner has already remitted a substantial amount of Rs.47,98,723/-, which has not been taken into account and further he seeks for an opportunity to the petitioner to place all records before the respondent authority. It is his contention that the petitioner had remitted more than 25% of the assessed dues. In view of the above, he prayed for quashment of order dated 21.01.2026.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that instead of availing the statutory appeal under Section 7I of the Act, has chosen to file a review under Section 7B and has not complied with the mandatory conditions. He further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, firstly, this Court has observed that though a substantial amount was paid by the petitioner, the petitioner has to pay a further sum of the alleged dues and in obedience, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions has expressed the readiness to comply the same and therefore, he prayed that a meagre sum may be fixed for the said remittan