M/S. Islamiah Institute of Technology Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S. ISLAMIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL MR. AZEEMULLA SHERIFF, NATIONAL PARK ROAD, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU POST, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. K PRABHAKAR RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU (KORAMANGALA), REGIONAL OFFICE, BOMMASANDRA-II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX, SY. NO. 37/1, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 068.

¶17

ISLAMIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY EMPLOYEES UNION (R),

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:2536-DB WA No. 262 of 2024

¶19

2 -

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 52, SHANBHOGANA HALLI, NATIONAL PARK ROAD, BENGALURU-560 083.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. NANDITA D. HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.16446/2022 (L-RES), ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶28

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.16446/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the 2^nd respondentUnion by stating in paragraph No.3 as under:

¶29

“xx xx xx xx xx

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2536-DB WA No. 262 of 2024

¶31

I find no justification in the submission made on behalf of the first respondent. The records are secured. A perusal of the same would reveal that after 19.03.2020 the interim order is not extended. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to quash the letter dated: 19.05.2021 vide Annexure-B and also direct the first respondent to take appropriate action under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for implementation of the 7A order in accordance with law.

¶32

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.”

¶33

The grievance of the 2^nd respondent-Union before

¶34

the learned Single Judge was that, order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the 1^st respondent i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund Commissioner, Bengaluru under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘the Act’ for short) is not being implemented.

¶35

The appellant herein had preferred an appeal (EPF

¶36

Appeal No.131/2019) against the order passed Under Section 7A before the Appellate Authority under the Act.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2536-DB WA No. 262 of 2024

¶38

During the pendency of proceedings, there was an interim order of stay of the order passed by the 1^st respondent-Commissioner; but the same was not extended.

¶39

Resultantly, the 2^nd respondent-Union submitted a representation requesting the 1^st respondentCommissioner to implement the order. However, the 1^st respondent-Commissioner declined to entertain the representation on the ground that their panel Advocate had directed them not to precipitate the matter as the Court was vacant.

¶40

It is not the case of the parties that the interim order was vacated by a reasoned order. It appears, the order was not continued, may be because the counsel, who was appearing for the appellant herein, did not pray to the Tribunal to extend the interim order.

¶41

In any case, the learned Single Judge has quashed the letter of the 1^st respondent-Commissioner dated

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2536-DB WA No. 262 of 2024

¶43

19.05.2021 and directed the said Commissioner to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Act for implementation of the order passed under Section 7A of the Act.

¶44

During the course of hearing, we have been informed by learned counsel for the appellant that, as the Employees’ Provident Fund Tribunal (EPFT) -cum- Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) is functional, the appeal is now listed on 12.02.2025. He also states that, the appeal be directed to be heard by extending the interim order. Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent also agrees with the fact that the date of hearing before the Tribunal is 12.02.2025.

¶45

If that be so we deem it appropriate, to extend the interim order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Tribunal, by a period of four weeks with a direction to the 1^st respondent-Commissioner not to take coercive steps pursuant to the order passed under Section 7A of the Act. The Tribunal shall hear the counsel for the parties finally

¶46