M/s Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs Employees Provident Fund Organization, Through its commissioner — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/s Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs Employees Provident Fund Organization, Through its commissioner — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Ad-interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (d); and, as separately directed in the meanwhile, no coercive steps under Section 17B of the said Act against the Petitioners by Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2 until the next date; matter stood over to 14th July, 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 22.07.2023 passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is sustainable, given that the Unit of the Petitioner is admittedly non-functional from 15.01.2019 due to disconnection of electricity. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found that an arguable case has been made out on the basis of the aforesaid submissions and the compilation of documents placed on record, taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

Ratio / Principle

In the meanwhile, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken by Respondent No.1 as also Respondent No.2 under Section 17B of the said Act against the Petitioners, until the next date.

Key takeaways

Ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (d).ratio¶28
If the role of Respondent No.2 is that of a formal party (as submitted by its counsel), Respondent No.2 shall not take any steps if it has taken any steps.¶24
Respondent No.1 is directed to remain present through its pleader and accordingly apprise the Court about the present status of the case against the Petitioner.¶25

View all holdings →

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim (ad-interim) order, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Milind N. Jadhav, J., Writ Petition No.8252 of 2025, M/s. Premium Tools Pvt Ltd. and Anr. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr., dated JUNE 30, 2025. Counsel for the Petitioners assailed the impugned order dated 22.07.2023 passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as not sustainable because the Petitioner’s Unit is admittedly non-functional from 15.01.2019 due to disconnection of electricity, and complained that coercive proceedings under Section 17B of the said Act were undertaken against Petitioner No.2, seeking that they be halted so the Petition could be heard and disposed of in accordance with law. Placing an additional compilation on record (marked ‘X’ for identification), the Court found an arguable case made out, granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), and directed that until the next date no coercive steps under Section 17B be taken against the Petitioners by Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 — identified in the order as Union of India, whose role counsel described as formal — was directed not to take any steps if it had taken any. Respondent No.1, though served, was unrepresented at the hearing and was directed to appear through its pleader with appropriate instructions and apprise the Court of the status of the case. The Petitioners were directed to take instructions regarding filing of a statutory Appeal under Section 7I of the said Act. Copy of the order to be served on Respondents by Petitioners’ counsel. Stand over to 14th July, 2025.

22.WP.8252.2025.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.8252 OF 2025

M/s. Premium Tools Pvt Ltd. and Anr. .. Petitioners

Versus

Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr.

.. Respondents

Mr. Vinay Kadam, Advocate i/by Amanchi Legal & Co. for Petitioners.

Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha, Advocate i/by Ansari for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JUNE 30, 2025

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Ms.

Bharucha, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. One of the grievance advanced by Mr. Kadam is that the impugned order dated 22.07.2023 passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘ the said Act ’) is not sustainable in view of the fact that admittedly Unit of Petitioner is non-functional from 15.01.2019 due to disconnection of electricity.

3. An additional compilation of documents is placed on record by Mr. Kadam to justify his submission. He would make a grievance to the Court that coercive proceedings under Section 17B of the said Act are undertaken against Petitioner No.2 with which Petitioners are

1 of 3

22.WP.8252.2025.doc

aggrieved. He would therefore persuade the Court that in view of the aforesaid submission, the coercive proceedings be halted and Petition be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.

4. An arguable case has been made out by Mr. Kadam on the basis of aforesaid submissions as also compilation of documents which is placed on record and taken on record and marked ‘ X ’ for identification.

5. Ms. Bharucha, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – Union of India enters appearance. Despite Respondent No.1 having been served, none appears for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to ensure that its pleader appears in Court with appropriate instructions on the next adjourned date.

6. In the meanwhile, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken by Respondent No.1 as also Respondent No.2 under Section 17B of the said Act against the Petitioners, until the next date.

7. Ms. Bharucha would submit that role of Respondent No.2 is that of a formal party. If that be the case, Respondent No.2 shall not take any steps if it has taken any steps.

8. Respondent No.1 is directed to remain present through its pleader and accordingly apprise the Court about the present status of the case against Petitioner.

2 of 3

22.WP.8252.2025.doc

9. Ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (d).

10. Copy of this order shall be served on Respondent by learned Advocate for Petitioner.

11. Needless to state that Petitioner shall take appropriate instructions regarding filing of statutory Appeal under Section 7I of the said Act and apprise the Corut on the next date.

12. Stand over to 14^th July, 2025 .

H. H. SAWANT

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed by HARSHADA HARSHADA HANUMANT HANUMANT SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2025.06.30 18:01:13 +0530

3 of 3