Bombay High Court

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND THORU ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORYversusM/S. S.D. LAHANE

Decided: 12 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

Assessment of provident‑fund liability under Section 7A cannot be made on the basis of a balance sheet alone and cannot be imposed without identification of actual employees.

Summary

The Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund filed a writ petition challenging the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal’s order that set aside a Section 7A assessment under the Employees’ Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Tribunal had held that the assessment was based solely on the respondent’s balance sheet, which does not reveal the number of employees, and therefore could not justify a provident‑fund liability. The High Court agreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that PF authorities lack power to infer manpower requirements from financial statements and cannot levy contributions for unidentified workers. It noted that liability cannot be imposed on an establishment without concrete identification of the workmen entitled to benefits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the Tribunal’s order intact.

Issues considered

Can the Provident Fund authorities assess liability under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 based solely on a balance sheet?
Does the absence of identified employees preclude the imposition of provident‑fund liability on an employer?
Is the Tribunal’s approach of inferring manpower from the nature of the business permissible under the Act?

Subjects

Provident Fund
Section 7A
balance sheet assessment
employee identification
liability
high court
writ petition

Judgment

k 1/2 38 wp 5858.19 as.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.5858 OF 2019

Central Board of Trustees
Employees Provident Fund ....Petitioner
V/S
M/s. S.D. Lahane, Pune ....Respondent
_________

Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha for the Petitioner.
__________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 12 FEBRUARY 2026.
P.C.:

1. The Petition challenges order dated 30 May 2016 passed by
Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, allowing the
Appeal and setting aside order passed under Section 7A of the
Employees’ Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act).

2. I have heard Ms. Bharucha, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by her. I have
gone through the ?ndings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned
order. I have also perused the records of the case ?led alongwith the
present Petition.

3. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that except the
balance sheet of the Respondent, Petitioner had no material for the
purpose of ascertaining the provident fund dues under Section 7A of the

katkam Page No. 1 of 2
k 2/2 38 wp 5858.19 as.doc

Act. The balance sheet cannot depict the number of employees employed
by an organization. It appears that the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner conducted an exercise in surmise by assuming manpower
on the basis of the job undertaken by the organization. Thus, the liability
to pay provident fund is saddled in absence of any concrete information
regarding deployment of any particular manpower by the organization.
The Tribunal has recorded following ?ndings for setting aside 7A order:

“18. It is settled law now a days that any assessment on the basis of balance
sheet is not warranted. No power is vested on the Provident Fund authorities
to decide whether any particular job requires minimum manpower. Further
respondent itself is unknown about those workers, for whom alleged
assessment taken place. It is settled law that in absence of identi?ed workmen
or employees, who are entitled to such bene?t a liability cannot be saddled
upon an establishment in the name of compliance of or enforcement of law.
No collection can be made by the PF authorities for faceless, nameless or non-
identi?able workmen on the basis of expenditure shown in the balance sheet.”

4. I am in full agreement with the above reasonings recorded by the
Tribunal. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. Writ
Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
SUDARSHAN
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2026.02.13
15:30:05
+0530

katkam Page No. 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…