Bombay High Court
CRADLE RUNWAYS INDIA PVT LTDversusREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order dated 16 June 2026 passed under Section 8F of the EPF Act is set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Cradle Runways India Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 16 June 2026 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 8F of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that this order was invalid because a prior order under Section 7A had been passed on 9 April 2026 and communicated on 24 April 2026, and the appeal period for that order had not yet expired. The High Court held that the Section 8F order must be set aside, directing that any amount recovered be adjusted against the amount the petitioner would deposit while filing an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The Court also allowed the petitioner to file the appeal against the Section 7A order and excluded the time spent prosecuting the writ petition from the limitation period. The petition was thereafter disposed with the substantive merits left open for determination in the CGIT.
Issues considered
- The validity of the order dated 16 June 2026 passed under Section 8F of the EPF Act when a prior order under Section 7A had been issued and the appeal period was still pending.
- Whether the period spent prosecuting the writ petition should be excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal before the CGIT.
Legislation cited
- Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1962 — s. 7A, 8F
Subjects
- Employees Provident Fund Act
- Section 7A
- Section 8F
- appeal
- limitation period
- CGIT
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 13-WP-12439-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12439 OF 2026
Cradle Runways India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
: Versus :
Regional Provident Fund ...Respondent
Commissioner-II
Ms. Samiksha Kanani with Ms. Latika Yadav, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Gunjan Chaubey, for the Respondent.
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 21 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The order under Section 7A of the Employees Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1962 (EPF Act) is passed on 9
April 2026 which is communicated to the establishment vide email
dated 24 April 2026. Before expiry of period of 60 days for filing of
Appeal, it appears that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
issued order under Section 8F of the EPF Act on 16 June 2026. In that
view of the matter, the order dated 16 June 2026 deserves to be set
aside.
PAGE NO. 1 of 2
Monday, 21 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 13-WP-12439-2026.docx
2) It appears that Petitioner' review against the order dated 9
April 2026 is rejected by order dated 14 August 2026. Petitioner has a
remedy of filing Appeal before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal (CGIT) against the order dated 9 April 2026 and I accordingly
proceed to pass the following order :
(i) The order dated 16 June 2026 passed under Section 8F of the
EPF Act is set aside. The amount recovered by virtue of order
dated 16 June 2026 shall be adjusted against the amount
depositable by the Petitioner while filing the Appeal.
(ii) The Petitioner would be at liberty to file Appeal before the
the CGIT challenging the order dated 9 April 2026.
(iii) The period spent in prosecuting the present petition shall be
excluded while computing the period of limitation in filing the
Appeal.
3) With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. All
contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
[SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.22
11:02:58
+0530
PAGE NO. 2 of 2
Monday, 21 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.