The court upheld statutory obligations under the EPF Act, emphasizing the necessity for compliance and rejecting the petitioner's claims due to lack of credible defense.

ORDER :

All the respondents are represented.

2. The writ petition has been filed against a notice issued by the respondent No.2-The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 22.11.2024 for the petitioner to show-cause as to why a warrant of arrest should not be issued against the petitioner.

3. The impugned notice has been issued under sections 7A, 7Q and 14B of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The petitioner was asked to appear before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 16.12.2024 at 02:30 p.m.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice emanates from the fact of the petitioner company being closed in 2013 and the management of the petitioner company entered into a Memorandum of Settlement with the workers on 30.06.2014 whereby the management agreed to pay full compensation to the workers from 01.09.2013 to 30.11.2013 as well as the statutory benefits. The Settlement involved other issues which would appear from the Memorandum.

5. Counsel submits that certain sums were paid to the workers on various dates up to August, 2013. Counsel submits that the respondents/Provident Fund Authorities however issued 2 notices on 08.05.2015 and thereafter on 06.11.2015 under sections 7A, 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act.

6. Counsel submits that the petitioner complied with the first notice dated 08.05.2015 and also that both the notices consist of contradictory content.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Provident Fund Authorities submits that the petitioner has filed an earlier W.P.No.9443 of 2016 seeking orders against the respondents including against a notice for proclamation of sale dated 16.02.2016. Counsel further places an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.03.2016 containing an interim direction to the Provident Fund Authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.02.2016.

8. Counsel submits that the Provident Fund Authorities considered the representation and passed the order dated 31.03.2016 stating that there are outstanding dues from the petitioner under sections 7A, 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act amounting to a total of Rs.1,16,50,519/-. At this stage, it must be mentioned that, though counsel appearing for the petitioner disputes the factum of notice dated 31.03.2016 by referring to a notice dated 31.03.2019, in a document dated 22.11.2023, the fact remains that the dates of 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2019 would appear from the letters issued by the Provident Fund Authorities.

9. The Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

10. Despite the confusion with regard to the date on which the Provident Fund Authorities disposed of the representation pursuant to the order of the Court dated 22.03.2016, there is little doubt that the petitioner company owes substantial amounts to the Provident Fund Authorities under the EPF Act.

11. The petitioner has not given any credible explanation or shown any document which would be a good defence to the notices issued by the Provident Fund Authorities. The impugned document is merely a show- cause notice issued to the petitioner on 22.11.2024. Moreover, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Provident Fund Authorities on 16.12.2024 at 02:30 p.m. to show-cause as to why the petitioner should not be committed to the civil prison. The petitioner seeks intervention of the Writ Court for stay of the said notice.

12. This Court is not inclined to stay the impugned notice also for the fact that the petitioner obtained an order from a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.03.2016 directing the PF authorities to dispose of the petitioner’s representations. The Provident Fund Authorities thereafter informed the petitioner on 31.03.2016 that penalty damages may be waived but that dues of Rs.1,16,50,519/- were still outstanding from the petitioner under the provisions of the EPF Act. The petitioner admittedly took no steps for 8 years from 31.03.2016 till fi