Prehari Cyber Security And Facilities Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 31/2026 and CM APPL.46/2026 PREHARI CYBER SECURITY AND FACILITIES PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. S.K. Gupta, Mr. Vinay Kumar Bhasin, Ms. Mansi Asthana, Advs.

versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Braja Bandhu Pradhan, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 08.01.2026

O R D E R

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)- cum- Labour Court, Delhi, in Appeal No. D-1/26/2025. 2.

The impugned order directs the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,90,507/- in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) as a condition for grant of interim relief. The operative direction in the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 reads as under:- 3.

During the course of hearing, it transpires that the said interim order has been vacated on 17.12.2025. A copy of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)- cum- Labour The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Court, Delhi, has been handed over during the course of hearing. The same reads as under:- 4.

Subsequently, the entire amount held to be payable under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been recovered from the petitioner. As such, there is no occasion for this Court to grant an interim order at this stage. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue its pending appeal before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court and inter alia as regards the legality of the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

5.

The petitioner also seeks liberty to file an appropriate application, seeking refund of the amount realised by the respondent. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move such an application for release of the amount; the same shall be duly considered, strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the merits of any such application.

6.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J JANUARY 8, 2026/uk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.