JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri E.S.Sanjeeva Rao, representing learned counsel Ms. Swetha Thakur, appears for the appellants.

Learned counsel Sri D.Raghavendar Rao appears for the respondents.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned writ court dismissing W.P.No.25847 of 2025 filed by the appellants.

3. The learned writ court refused to interfere in the order dated 17.09.2024 passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), whereby respondent No.4 has determined the provident fund dues of Rs.1,34,73,725/- upon best judgment assessment. The consequential recovery proceedings initiated under Section 8B and 8G of the Act, including the prohibitory order in E.P.F.C.P.3 dated 24.06.2025 for Rs.1,60,79,005/- and the show cause notice before issuance of warrant of arrest under E.P.F.C.P.25, dated 30.07.2025, issued pursuant to the recovery certificate were also challenged in the writ petition. The learned writ court upheld the action of respondent No.4 in initiating the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, the determination made and the consequential proceedings as being proper in the eye of law. The learned writ court also took into account that about 60 adjournments were granted over a period of two years and more from the date of initiation of the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act till the impugned assessment order was passed on the basis of best judgment assessment on available evidence, including the financial documents.

Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

4. On the plea of alternative remedy of appeal against the order passed under Section 7A of the Act, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the consequential orders under Section 8B and 8G of the Act, the prohibitory order and the show cause notice are not amenable to the appellate authority under Section 7-I of the Act. On merits, it has been contended that respondent No.4 conducted the original proceedings under Section 7A of the Act in violation of principles of natural justice denying the opportunity to rebut the grounds taken by it for assessment of the alleged outstanding dues of the employees under the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that despite 60 adjournments granted to the employer, due to non-production of the statutory records, the authority had been left with no other option than to determine the dues on available materials, including the financial statements and balance sheets. The authority also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Panther Security Service (P) Ltd. v. EPFO, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 981. Learned counsel for the respondents has also taken a plea that the appellants have approached the learned writ court without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 7-I of the Act.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking note of the relevant materials placed on record, we are of the view that determination of outstanding dues under Section 7A of the Act are amenable to the appellate remedy provided under Section 7-I of the Act, hedged with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the Act. All contentious issues on facts and on law can be raised before the appellate authority. The appellants have failed to avail the appellate remedy by straightaway approaching the writ court. The consequential proceedings under Section 8B and 8G of the Act and the prohibitory orders have been issued only due to non-payment of adjudged dues by the employer-appellants. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants seeks liberty to approach the appellate authority with an application for condonation of delay and statutory deposit, subject to any waiver granted under the proviso to Section 7-O of the Act by the appellate authority. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider