Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHUBHAM MAHILA VIKAS MANDALversusREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The court stayed execution of the Section 7A order subject to a 25% deposit and disposed the writ petition, keeping the merits open for the CGIT appeal.

Summary

M/s. Shubham Mahila Vikas Mandal obtained a Section 7A order ascertaining Provident Fund dues and a Section 7B order rejecting its review petition. The petitioner appealed to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) under Order 23 of the Code of Social Security, 2020, claiming lack of a presiding officer and denial of a hearing on the enforcement officer's report. The High Court held that, since an alternative remedy was already pursued, the writ petition could not be entertained in full, but granted a conditional stay of the Section 7A order provided the petitioner deposited 25% of the ascertained amount within two weeks. The stay is effective pending the CGIT appeal, and the writ petition was disposed, leaving the merits of the case open for determination in the CGIT proceedings.

Issues considered

  • The High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy (CGIT appeal) is pending.
  • Whether a stay of execution of a Section 7A order can be granted pending the CGIT appeal.
  • Whether the rejection of the review petition without a hearing violates principles of natural justice.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Provident Fund
  • Section 7A
  • Section 7B
  • review petition
  • natural justice
  • stay of execution
  • CGIT
  • Code of Social Security
  • writ petition
  • alternative remedy

Judgment

Neeta Sawant                                              18-WP-11033-2026.docx

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 11033 OF 2026


M/s. Shubham Mahila Vikas Mandal                               …..Petitioner

         : Versus :

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II              ….Respondent
__________________________________________________________________

Ms. Samiksha Kanani, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Gunjan Chaubey, for the Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________


                                             CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                             DATED :     24 AUGUST 2026.
P.C. :


1)              Petitioner has suffered order under Section 7A ascertaining the
Provident Fund dues, as well as, the order passed under Section 7B of the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
rejecting the Review Petition. Petitioner has now filed an Appeal before the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) under the provisions of
Order 23 of the Code of Social Security, 2020.


2)              I have heard Ms. Kanani, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Chaubey, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent-EPFO.

___________________________________________________________________________
                     __________PAGE NO. 1 of 2_________
                           Monday, 24 August 2026
                      Neeta Sawant                                               18-WP-11033-2026.docx



                      3)             In the light of alternate remedy being already exercised, there is
                      no warrant for this Court to entertain the present petition. However, Ms.
                      Kanani submits that no Presiding Officer is available in CGIT-I or II which is
                      preventing the Petitioner from seeking urgent interim reliefs. She invites
                      attention of this Court to communication dated 27 July 2026 by which
                      EPFO is attempting to enforce the order.


                      4)             Ms. Kanani submits that the Petitioner did not receive an
                      opportunity to react to the report of the Enforcement Officer. She also
                      submits that the Review Petition is rejected without grant of opportunity of
                      hearing to the Petitioner.


                      5)             Petitioner shall deposit with the Respondent-EPFO 25% of the
                      ascertained amount within a period of 2 weeks. Subject to the deposit being
                      made, there shall be stay to the execution of Section 7A order during
                      pendency of the Appeal before the CGIT. The Writ Petition is accordingly
                      disposed of.


                      6)             All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.


         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH                                                         SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT   Date:
         2026.08.25
         08:58:54
         +0530




                      ___________________________________________________________________________
                                           __________PAGE NO. 2 of 2_________
                                                 Monday, 24 August 2026


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.