MUTUAL AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTDversusREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

Neeta Sawant                                               904-WP-8532-2026.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8532 OF 2026


Mutul Automotive Pvt. Ltd.                                       ...Petitioner


                     V/s.


Regional           Provident        Fund                    ...Respondent
Commissioner
                               ________________
Ms. Samiksha Kanani with Ms. Janhavi Jadhav, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Smita Thakur, for the Respondent-RPFC
                               ________________


                                 CORAM:          SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                  DATED:         10 JULY 2026.


P.C.:


1)               The Petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved by
the action of Regional Provident Fund Commisioner-II and Recovery
Officer, Pune (RPFC) issuing notice of demand dated 27 April 2026
and demanding an amount of Rs.1,73,39,748/- in pursuance of order
dated 18 September 2023 passed under the provisions of Section 7A of
the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(EPF Act) and the Recovery Certificate dated 10 April 2024.


                                    PAGE NO. 1 of 5
                                    10 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant                                           904-WP-8532-2026.docx


2)             I have heard Ms. Kanani, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner. She submits that the Petitioner has filed Appeal under
Section 7I of the EPF Act challenging Section 7A order dated 18
September 2023. She further submits that Petitioner has also filed
application under Section 7O of the EPF Act seeking waiver of deposit
of the ascertained amount, as well as for stay. She complains that the
application under Section 7O has been kept pending by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) for the last almost 2 long years
without any decision thereon. She submits that the application under
Section 7O was closed for orders on 9 December 2024 but the order
therein is yet to be passed. She takes me through the rojnama of the
Tribunal in support of her contention that the Tribunal has not passed
order on application under Section 7O for a considerable period of time.
She submits that despite knowing the position of Section 7O application
being closed for orders, the RPFC has acted arbitrary by issuing the
impugned notice of demand dated 27 April 2026.


3)             Per-contra, Ms. Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent-RPFC submits that mere filing of Appeal under Section
7I of the EPF Act does not automatically operate as stay to the order
passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act. She further submits that
under the provisions of Section 7O, the Appeal cannot be entertained
unless deposit of 75% of the ascertained amount is made. She submits
that there is nothing on record to indicate that the application under
Section 7O has been reserved for orders as falsely sought to be
suggested by the Petitioner. She therefore justifies the action of RPFC
in issuing the impugned notice of demand.



                                   PAGE NO. 2 of 5
                                   10 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant                                             904-WP-8532-2026.docx


4)             Ordinarily, this Court would not have entertained the
present petition in the light of the fact that the proceedings in the
Appeal are already pending before the CGIT. However, it is submitted
that the post of Presiding Officer of CGIT-II is vacant and and
additional charge has been given to CGIT, Nagpur. It appears that only
camp hearings are being conducted due to non-availability of a regular
Presiding Officer in CGIT-II.        It is on account of these peculiar
circumstances that this Court is inclined to entertain the present
petition.


5)             Perusal of the rojnama in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner
would indicate that hearing of the application under Section 7O for stay
of the order commenced on 12 November 2024 and after conducting the
hearing, the proceedings were adjourned to 9 December 2024 for filing
of citations.    On 9 December 2024, the rojnama records that the
application was ‘fixed for orders on 7-O and stay application on 6.1.2025 ’.
The rojnama of 9 December 2024 creates an impression as if the
application for waiver and stay were closed for orders which was
supposed to be passed on 6 January 2025. However, the subsequent
rojnama indicates that the application was again fixed for hearing from
time to time. Be that as it may. The application for waiver and stay is
kept pending before the Tribunal for unusually long period of time
without passing any order therein. This compels this Court to exercise
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
and do something which the Tribunal was required to do under the Act.
It is not known as to whether the Tribunal would be in a position to
pass order on Section 7-O application. In the meantime, the RPFC is
proceeding ahead for recovery of the amount.

                                   PAGE NO. 3 of 5
                                   10 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                     904-WP-8532-2026.docx


6)                Under the order dated 18 September 2023 passed under
Section 7A of the Act, the liability of the Petitioner is ascertained at
Rs.1,73,39,748/-. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, in my view, ends of justice would be met if Petitioner is
directed to deposit with the Respondent-RPFC an amount equal to 25%
of the ascertained amount as condition for grant of stay to the order
dated 18 September 2023. This is done both on account of peculiar
circumstances of the case, as well as keeping in mind the provisions of
the new Labour Code. It is clarified that this order is being passed in
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case after noticing failure on the
part of the Tribunal to decide application for stay and application for
waiver under Section 7Q for a considerable period of time. The order
shall not be construed to mean as if it would be a precedent for filing of
direct petitions before this Court for seeking stay of orders passed
under Section 7A of the EPF Act. Such direction would obviate any
further hearings on application for stay, as well as application for waiver
under Section 7O of the EPF Act and the Appeal itself can be taken up
for hearing and decision.


7)                It appears that the Petitioner has apparently handed over
cheque of amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the RPFC on 15 June 2026.
The Petitioner would have credit of the said amount against deposit of
25% amount directed by this Court.


8)                In the facts and circumstances of this case, I proceed to pass
the following order :


               (i)The Petitioner shall deposit with the Respondent-RPFC
               25% of the amount ascertained             under the order dated 18
                                       PAGE NO. 4 of 5
                                       10 JULY 2026
                      Neeta Sawant                                                     904-WP-8532-2026.docx


                                     September 2023 (less Rs.10,00,000/-) within a period of one
                                     week. Subject to the deposit of the indicated amount within the
                                     stipulated time, there shall be stay to the order dated 18
                                     September 2023 during pendency of the Appeal.


                                     (ii) The CGIT shall accordingly proceed to pass a formal order
                                     disposing of application for stay, as well as, application for
                                     waiver under Section 7O of the EPF Act.


                                     (iii) The Tribunal shall proceed to decide the Appeal on its own
                                     merits without being influenced by any of the observations
                                     made in the present order.


                      9)                With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.


         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
         SHAILESH
                                                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
NEETA
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT   Date:
         2026.07.10
         17:47:45
         +0530




                                                             PAGE NO. 5 of 5
                                                             10 JULY 2026