Bombay High Court
M/S. SHIVTARA PROPERTIES PVT LTD AND ANRversusEMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH OFFICER AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The stay granted by the CGIT‑2 shall continue during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the petitioners' deposit of Rs.15,00,000.
Summary
M/s. Shivtara Properties Pvt. Ltd. challenged the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑2 (CGIT‑2) which allowed a stay of EPF liability on the condition that the petitioners deposit 35% of the assessed amount. The petitioners argued that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) had arbitrarily fixed the liability from April 2013 without concrete evidence of when the Employees’ Provident Funds Act became applicable to the establishment, which they contend should be from 1 July 2016. The High Court noted that the RPFC’s determination was based on guesswork, as salary records were unavailable, and that the correct liability, if assessed from July 2016, would be about Rs.1.77 crore. The Court had earlier directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.15,00,000, which they did. Consequently, the Court modified the CGIT‑2 order, directing that the stay granted by the Tribunal continue to operate during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the deposit of Rs.15,00,000.
Issues considered
- Whether the RPFC erred in fixing EPF liability from April 2013 without concrete evidence of the Act's applicability date.
- Whether the stay order granted by the Tribunal should be continued pending the appeal.
- Whether the deposit of Rs.15,00,000 by the petitioners suffices to maintain the stay.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Employees' Provident Funds Act
- Applicability date
- Liability assessment
- Stay order
- Industrial Tribunal
- High Court
- Writ petition
- Deposit requirement
Judgment
Megha 44_wp_3755_2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3755 OF 2025
M/s. Shivtara Properties Pvt. Ltd. and
Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Employees Provident Fund
Organisation through Enforcement
Officer and Anr. ...Respondents
________________
Adv. Zia Rahman with Ms. Bhakti Bangar i/b. M/s. Manoj Harit & Co. for
the Petitioners.
Mr. Bhupen Garud i/b. Ms. Divya Tyagi for the Respondents.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 24 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petition challenges order dated 18 February 2025 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2,
Mumbai (CGIT-2), allowing the application for stay subject to condition
of the Petitioners depositing 35% of the assessed amount. Perusal of the
order dated 27 August 2024 passed under Section 7A of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the EPF Act)
would indicate that a specific statement is made that the establishment
is covered from 1 July 2016. This is further reiterated in paragraph 8, in
Page No.1 of 3
24 September 2026
Megha 44_wp_3755_2025
which it is stated that the establishment falls under CAT-A of defaulter
list and as per the defaulter list (CAT-A) dated 5 July 2018 the
establishment failed to remit dues from October-2017 onwards. However,
prima facie it appears that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
(RPFC) erroneously applied the scheme and has fixed the liability from
April 2013 by holding as under:-
The establishment has not submitted salary sheets from the date of set
up to confirm the date of applicability. The establishment has produced
only the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account from the year 2011-
12 to 2018-19. On verification of the same, Departmental
Representative observed that relevant entries are shown as "NIL" in the
Profit and Loss account for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 however, in
the Profit and Loss account from 2013-14 onwards, mention of two
projects namely "Athena Projects" and "Ashirwad Projects" are found in
the Balance sheet and Profit and Loss Account and it has booked huge
amount under the head Salary A/C. Labour charges and Security
charges for these projects. Considering the minimum wages of that
time, there is a possibility that the establishment has crossed the limit
of 19 employees in the month of April, 2013. Whereas in the absence of
records, the exact date of applicability of EPF and MP Act of the
establishment cannot be ascertained.
2) Thus, though there was no concrete evidence of date of
applicability of EPF Act to the establishment, RPFC prima facie appears
to have done a mere guess work by ascertaining the dues from April
2013. If the dues were to be ascertained from 1 July 2016 the same would
be roughly to the tune of Rs.1.77 crores as ascertained under Section 7A
order. By order dated 13 March 2025 this Court has already directed the
Petitioners to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- of the assessed amount. Said
amount is apparently deposited by the Petitioners.
3) In view of the above position, interim stay granted by this Court
on 13 March 2025 needs to be continued during pendency of the appeal
before the CGIT-2.
Page No.2 of 3
24 September 2026
Megha 44_wp_3755_2025
4) Petition is accordingly disposed of by modifying order dated 18
February 2025 passed by the CGIT-2 and directing that the stay granted
by the Tribunal shall continue to operate during pendency of the appeal
on account of deposit of amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Petitioners.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 24 September 2026
Date: 28/09/2026 15:12:53
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.