M/S. Aaradhya Infrastructure v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1539 OF 2024 M/s. Matoshri Laxmi Sugar CoGeneration Industries Ltd. Solapur } ....Petitioner : Versus :

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, through its Asst/Regional PF Commissioner and Recovery Officer }....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2024 Shri. Sant Kurmadas Sahakari Karkhana Ltd.

} ....Petitioner : Versus :

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, through its Asst/Regional PF Commissioner and Recovery Officer }....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 635 OF 2024 M/s. Aaradhya Infrastructure } ....Petitioner : Versus :

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.

}....Respondents 1 of

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1962 OF 2024 Solapur Municipal Corporation, through the Additional Commissioner } ....Petitioner : Versus :

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office }....Respondent __________________________________________________ Mr. Amit A. Karande, for the Petitioner in WP-1539-2024 & WP-65-2024. Ms. Samiksha Kanani a/w. Prasanna Pawar, for the Petitioner in WP-6352024. Mr. Ramdas Hake Patil, for the Petitioner in WP-1962-2024. Ms. Ranjana Todankar, for the Respondent.

__________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated :

4 July 2024.

P.C. :

1) These petitions are filed essentially on account of the fact that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) before whom Appeal under the provisions of Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) is maintainable, was not functional at the relevant time on account of which the Petitioners were not 2 of

in a position to pursue remedy for seeking stay against the execution of orders passed under the provisions of Section 7Q and 14B of the Act. 2) The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that now CGITII is functional before whom the remedy of Appeal can be pursued by the Petitioners. It appears that the Petitioners in all the petitions have already lodged their Appeals before the Tribunal alongwith application for stay and waiver. It also appears that Petitioners have already deposited amounts arising out of orders passed under Section 7Q of the Act with the Respondents.

3) In that view of the matter, the petitions need not be kept pending any longer. Petitioners can instead pursue the remedy of Appeal, as well as, application for stay. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of leaving open all the points raised therein and granting liberty to the Petitioners to pursue the remedy of Appeal, as well as, application for stay before the Tribunal. Till the application for stay and waiver filed by the Petitioners are decided by the Tribunal, the interim order granted by this Court shall continue to operate.

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date:

2024.07.06 15:42:20 +0530 [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT 3 of