Central Board Of Trustees, Epf,Through Assistant Provident Fund Comissioner v. Abhinav Education Society

k 1/3 8 wp 1475.25 as.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1475 OF 2025 Central Board of Trustees, EPF ....Petitioner V/S M/s. Abhinav Education Society ....Respondent _________ Mr. M.P. Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravi Rattesar, for Petitioner-EPF.

Ms. Samiksha Kanani with Mr. Hanish D. Pithadia, Mr. Paresh S. Waghmare, & Mr. Shekhar S. Sasanka for Respondent.

__________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 1 APRIL 2025.

P.C.:

1.

By this Petition Petitioner-EPFO has challenged order dated 3 September 2024 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai, (CJIT-2) by which the Application filed by Respondent-Establishment under provisions of Section 7-O of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) has been allowed, by which the Application for waiver as well as Application for stay of order dated 31 May 2024 have been allowed. 1 of

k 2/3 8 wp 1475.25 as.doc 2.

I have heard Mr. Rao, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner-EPFO and Ms. Kanani, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent-Establishment. 3.

After having heard the learned counsel appearing for parties, it appears that initially order was passed on 13 December 2018 under provisions of Section 7-A of the Act determining the amount of Rs.3,06,49,894/- against the Respondent-Establishment for the period from March 2010 to March 2016. The said order dated 13 December 2018 came to be assailed by the Respondent-Establishment in Writ Petition No.3234 of 2019 by which the order dated 13 December 2018 was set aside with direction to grant opportunity to the RespondentEstablishment to file Reply to the Inspection Report and also for grant of personal hearing. It appears that the RespondentEstablishment was made to deposit amount of Rs.50,00,000/- with the Petitioner-EPFO as a pre-condition for remand of the proceedings. The said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been deposited by the Respondent-Establishment with PetitionerEPFO. 4.

Upon reconsideration of the matter, the total amount due came to be ascertained at Rs.2,20,83,092/-. The RPFC found that the amount already paid by the Respondent-Establishment was 2 of

k 3/3 8 wp 1475.25 as.doc Rs.56,30,421/- and accordingly the total outstanding amount is ascertained at Rs.1,64,52,671/-.

5.

Ms. Kanani would submit that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- deposited in pursuance of directions this Court vide order dated 19 March 2019 is in addition to Rs.56,30,421/- paid by the Respondent-Establishment.

6.

In my view, out of the final ascertained amount of Rs.2,20,83,092/- either there is a deposit of almost 25% amount of Rs.56,30,421/- or 50% amount if the deposit is made of Rs.50,00,000/- in pursuance of order passed by this Court is taken into consideration. In that view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the CJIT-2 in the unique facts and circumstances of the case in granting waiver under Section 7-O of the Act cannot really be found fault with. 7.

The Petition is accordingly rejected.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date:

2025.04.03 14:21:16 +0530 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM 3 of