K.R. Construction vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -Ii — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

K.R. Construction vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -Ii — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders dated 10 June 2025 set aside; proceedings remanded to the RPFC for fresh decision after taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer about withdrawal of the complaints, the RPFC to decide on its own merits without being influenced by this Court's observations; with the above directions, both Petitions disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 10 June 2025 issued by the RPFC under Section 26-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952, declaring the Petitioners' employees eligible for membership and the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and schemes framed thereunder applicable to them, were properly made. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing on record to indicate that the RPFC considered the report of the Enquiry Officer on withdrawal of the complaints, and even the affidavit-in-reply is silent on this aspect.

Key takeaways

It is necessary to remand the proceedings for re-determination before the RPFC for consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer on the aspect of withdrawal of the complaints.ratio¶22
The impugned orders dated 10 June 2025 are set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the RPFC for fresh decision after taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer about withdrawal of the complaints.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Sandeep V. Marne, J., 23 January 2026 — Connected Writ Petitions Nos. 4405 and 4403 of 2025 (K.R. Construction and Konark Structural v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II): Petitioners challenged orders dated 10 June 2025 passed by the RPFC under Section 26-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952, ordering that their employees were eligible for membership and that the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and the schemes framed thereunder applied to them; the Petitioners pleaded that the concerned workers had settled their claims. The Court found nothing on record to show that the RPFC had considered the Enquiry Officer's report on withdrawal of the complaints, the affidavit-in-reply being silent on the point. Accordingly, the orders dated 10 June 2025 were set aside and the proceedings remanded to the RPFC for re-determination/fresh decision after considering that report, with a direction to decide afresh on merits uninfluenced by the Court's observations; both Petitions were disposed of.

2026:BHC-OS:2181

Megha 33_wp_4405_2025 with_4403_25.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.4405 OF 2025

K.R. Construction ...Petitioner

V/s.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II ...Respondent

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4403 OF 2025

Konark Structural ...Petitioner

V/s.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II ...Respondent

______________ Mr. Mahesh Shukla with Mr. Niraj Prajapati for the Petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Kumar for the Respondent.

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 23 JANUARY 2026.

P.C.:

Petitioners have challenged orders dated 10 June 2025 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II ( the RPFC ) exercising powers under Section 26-B of the Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and ordering that the employees of the Petitioners

Page No. 1 of 2

23 January 2026

Megha 33_wp_4405_2025 with_4403_25.docx

were eligible for membership and that the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and the schemes framed thereunder are applicable to them. It is the defence of the Petitioners that the concerned workers have settled their claims.

Perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that the RPFC had called for report from the Enquiry Officer on the aspect of withdrawal of the complaints. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that report of the Enquiry Officer has been considered by the RPFC. Even the affidavit-in-reply is silent on this aspect.

In my view, therefore, it would be necessary to remand the proceedings for re-determination before the RPFC for the purpose of consideration of report of the Enquiry Officer on the aspect of withdrawal of the complaints.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 10 June 2025 are set aside and the proceedings are remanded before the RPFC for fresh decision after taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer about withdrawal of the complaints. In the remanded proceedings the RPFC shall proceed to pass order on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order.

With the above directions, both the Petitions are disposed of .

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/01/2026 15:21:10

Page No. 2 of 2 23 January 2026