M/S. STEEL STRONG VALVES (I) PVT. LTD.versusCENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES

     C/SCA/8046/2024                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8046 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                    Yes          No

==========================================================
                       M/S. STEEL STRONG VALVES (I) PVT. LTD.
                                      Versus
                        CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                                  Date : 03/02/2026

                                 ORAL JUDGMENT


1.      Rule returnable forthwith. Present petition is                led by the
petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 read with the provisions of
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 seeking following reliefs:

        “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate
        writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order
        passed by the learned Presiding O cer, CGIT-cum-Labour
        Court/ EPF Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dated 17.04.2024
        and 7A order dated 12.10.2023 in the interest of justice;

        (B) Pending admission, hearing and 3nal disposal of the
        petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation,


                                      Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/8046/2024                          JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




        implementation and execution of the order dated 12.10.2023
        passed by the respondent no 2 in 7A proceedings and also
        notice issued by the respondent No.3 dated 05.04.2024 as well
        as order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 12.10.2023 in
        the interest of justice;

        (C) Any other and further reliefs may be granted in favour of
        petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem 3t and proper under
        the circumstances of the case.”


2.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner is a Company engaged in valve manufacturing. That,
one Enforcement O,cer, Geetaben M. Nayar had visited the
petitioner on 03.07.2019, 05.07.2019 and also on 12.07.2019
where she had found that seven employees, receiving Rs.6500/-
(before 01.09.2014) and more than Rs.15000/- as basic wages
from 01.09.2014 were wrongly excluded under the P.F. Act.
Therefore, said O,cer had instructed the petitioner to deduct
P.F. from these seven workers and send to her the corresponding
challan with regard to the same. That, the said o,cer had
observed in the salary registers of September, 18 and May, 19
that the petitioner had split basic wages into HRA, transport
allowance, medical allowance, special allowance and other
allowances to reduce P.F. liabilities. That, the petitioner had
contract with Salamati Security and Personal Force Pvt. Ltd. for
supplying guards, having their own separate P.F. No.50756 and
therefore, said Enforcement O,cer had instructed petitioner to
verify P.F. deductions for security guards from said Salamati
Security and Personal Force Pvt. Ltd. along with checking P.F.
Challans and ECR. That, the petitioner had also contract with
Gunavantiben Gohel and Bharat Gohel housekeeping, and
therefore, said o,cer had also instructed petitioner to deduct



                                Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/8046/2024                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




P.F. from this contractor as well. That, during thorough
examination, the said Enforcement O,cer had not made
demand for any P.F. dues against the petitioner in her visit book.
That,      the     petitioner   therefore,       had   informed        the     said
o,cer/authority about P.F. compliance and the coverage of all
eligible employees, but they instructed remittance for 7
employees without providing their names. That, thereafter,
inquiry proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident
Fund Act was initiated against the petitioner wherein respondent
No.2 vide order dated 12.10.2023, directed the petitioner to pay
lump sum of Rs.67,67,894.00 as P.F. dues without any
calculation. That, consequently the petitioner                  led PF Appeal
before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
seeking prayer of setting aside the order dated 12.10.2023
passed under Section 7A of the Act. That, the petitioner has
preferred Appeal (CGIT) No. 10 of 2024 before Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal-cum-CGIT, Ahmedabad which
was      led after a delay of 10 days over and above statutory
period mentioned under the Act and therefore, Appeal was
rejected. After rejection, immediately the respondent No.3 had
issued notice dated 05.04.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.67,67,894 towards P.F. dues within 15 days from
date of receipt. In view of this, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition.


3.      Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned orders
passed by the concerned Tribunals and authority, the petitioner
has preferred the present petition.


4.      Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

                                   Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/8046/2024                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




Perused the material available on record.


5.      Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that impugned orders passed by the concerned
Tribunals and authority are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous
and contrary to the facts and material on record and the
provisions of the Act and therefore, are required to be quashed
and set aside. He has submitted that the CGIT has not
considered the fact that the delay was not more than 10 days
beyond statutory period mentioned under the Act which was not
to be condoned. He has submitted that respondent No.2 had not
provided        the    calculation   while         passing   the    order      dated
12.10.2023 and had committed grave error in calculating the
outstanding dues towards PF against the petitioner. He has
submitted that the 7A order to pay contribution in respect of self-
employed contractor and employees of the security contractor is
illegal and contrary to settled legal position of the law, as the
self-employed contractors raise bills and on that TDS gets
deducted and thereafter the payments are made and hence, self-
employed contractors cannot be termed as employee of the
petitioner. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of
petition, learned counsel Mr. Pandya has urged that the
impugned orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and
authority are required to be quashed and set aside and the
present petition is required to be allowed.



6.      As against that, learned counsel Mr. Pathik Acharya,
appearing for the respondent, has opposed the present petition
and submitted that there is no any in rmity or any illegality in

                                     Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/8046/2024                        JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




the impugned orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and
authority and therefore, no interference is required to be called
for in the present petition. He has submitted that the impugned
orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and authority are in
consonance with the settled principles of law and are passed
after following due procedure and therefore, the same are
required to be con rmed and the present petition is required to
be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. He has referred and relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Property Company (P) Ltd
vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda reported in 2026 (0) INSC 33.



7.      In the case of Rohinten Daddy Mazda(supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court while dealing with the issue involved in the
appeal, has held and observed that so far as the delay occurred
in preferring the proceedings before the Tribunal, the statutory
authority has no power to condone the delay except which is
vested with the competent court. Considering the observation
made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 160, the present
petition is to be heard by the appellate authority on merits.



8.      I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I
have also considered the impugned orders passed by the
concerned Tribunals and authority. It appears that the petitioner
had challenged a Section 7A order under the EPF Act following
inspections in July 2019 by Enforcement O,cer Geetaben M.

                              Page 5 of 7
     C/SCA/8046/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




Nayar. The o,cer alleged that seven employees were wrongly
excluded from PF coverage and that the company had
improperly split basic wages into various allowances to reduce its
PF liabilities. Additionally, instructions were given to verify
compliance regarding security and housekeeping contractors.
Despite the petitioner’s claims of compliance, respondent No. 2
issued an order on 12.10.2023, demanding a lump sum of Rs.
67,67,894 without providing detailed calculations. The petitioner
subsequently           led an appeal before the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Ahmedabad; however, while the
appeal was pending, a recovery notice was issued on
05.04.2024. Ultimately, the appeal (First Appeal No. 10 of 2024)
on 17.04.2024, due to a 10-day delay in           ling, leading to the
present petition.



9.      After considering the facts of the case and the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the
petition is hereby allowed. The delay occurred in preferring the
appeal is hereby condoned. The matter is remanded back to the
concerned appellate authority. The appellate authority shall hear
the matter after giving proper opportunity to all the concerned
parties and the parties shall raise such contentions before the
appellate authority, available under the law and the same shall
be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. As
the appeal is of 2024, it is expected that it shall be decided as
expeditiously as possible. Till the interim application shall be
preferred by the appellant before appellate authority for stay, no
coercive action against the petitioner shall be initiated as the
petitioner has already deposited 20% of demand amount before

                                  Page 6 of 7
         C/SCA/8046/2024                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




    the Provident Fund authority. Therefore, no coercive action
    should be taken against the petitioner till the interim application
    be decided. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.



                                                                  (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
    ANUSRI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/02/2026 17:19:16




                                                    Page 7 of 7