M/S H.M.T. Machine Tools Ltd. Vs the Regional Commissioner-Ii, Provident Funds Department, Employees Provident Funds Organization

[2025:RJ-JP:11052]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3461/2025

M/s H.M.T. Machine Tools Ltd, through Deputy Manager (Legal) Mukesh Kumar Sankhla S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Sankhla, aged about 44 Years, Authorized by Unit In-Charge Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Regional Commissioner-II, Provident Funds Department, Employees Provident Funds Organization, Office At A-3, Hari Bhau Nagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer (Raj.) Head Office Nidhi Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj)-302005.

¶8

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, A-3, Hari Bhau Nagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected with

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3471/2025

¶12

M/s H.M.T. Machine Tools Ltd, Through Deputy Manager (Legal) Mukesh Kumar Sankhla S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Sankhla, Aged About 44 Years, Authorized By Unit In-Charge Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The Regional Commissioner-II, Provident Funds Department, Employees Provident Funds Organization, Office At A-3, Hari Bhau Nagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer (Raj.) Head Office Nidhi Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj)-302005.

¶16

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, A-3, Hari Bhau Nagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Kamal Kant Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	R. K. Verma

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶20

11/03/2025

¶21

On behalf of respondents, counsel has put in appearance as Caveator.

¶22

With consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petitions have been heard finally on merits and are being disposed of by this common order.

[2025:RJ-JP:11052]

[CW-3461/2025]

(2 of 5)

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3461/2025, order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.1-The Regional Commissioner-II under Section 7-Q of the Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provision Act, 1952 (for short “the Act of 1952”) has been challenged whereby and whereunder, the petitionercompany has been saddled with interest and in furtherance thereof, bank account of petitioner-company has been ordered to be frozen.

¶27

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3471/2025, challenge has been made to the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.1-The Regional Commissioner-II under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provision Act, 1952, whereby and whereunder damages for delayed payment of the provident fund has been determined and directed to be paid by the petitioner-company.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents raised a preliminary objection that both the impugned orders are appealable before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) by virtue of Section 7-I of the Act, 1952, but petitioner instead of filing the statutory remedy of appeal, has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this High Court, hence, the writ petitions may not be entertained. In addition, it has been pointed out by virtue of Section 7-O of the Act, 1952, petitioner-company is required to deposit 75% of the determined amount, in order to maintain the appeal. The provision of Section 7-O of the Act, 1952

¶29

reads as under:-

¶30

“ 7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing appeal No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five

[2025:RJ-JP:11052]

[CW-3461/2025]

(3 of 5)

per cent, of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7A:

¶35

Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner-company, in order to meet out the preliminary objection, raised by learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner-company is ready to approach before the Tribunal by way of filing appeal against the impugned orders but since the petitioner-company is suffering from financial crisis as much as its account has been frozen by the respondents, the petitioner-company is not in a position to deposit 75% of determined amount nevertheless may arrange to deposit a lump-sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) against the interest amount, determined vide order dated 29.11.2024 and Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen lacs) against the order dated 30.12.2024 determining the damages, instead of depositing full 75% of the determined amount, hence on such condition and by reducing the amount of pre-deposit, petitioner-company may be relegated to approach before the Tribunal and the appeals may be ordered to be entertained and heard on merits by the Tribunal.

¶37

Having adverted to the rival contentions of counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the provision of Section 7-O of the Act, 1952, this Court finds that the pre-deposit of 75% of the determined amount is not a mandatory condition but same can be waived off or the amount can be reduced, subject to assigning the sufficient reasons and subject to satisfaction of the Court. The view of this Court find its strong footing on judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Gammon India Ltd v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner: [LPA 438/2021 & CM APPL

[2025:RJ-JP:11052]

[CW-3461/2025]

(4 of 5)

41024/2021] , wherein the High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority which reduced the pre-deposit of amount from 75% to 30% on the ground that the imposition of pre-deposit amount before filing an appeal, as per Section 7-O of the Act of 1952, on the company which is undergoing financial hardship would tantamount to undue hardship and since the Act is a welfare legislation, the tribunal after considering the prima facie merits of the case can waive or reduce the condition of predeposit of 75% amount.

¶42

In the present matters, the bank account of petitionercompany has been frozen and further taking into consideration the arguments of counsel for the petitioner-company that the petitioner-company is suffering from financial crisis and that is the reason of delay, in depositing the provident fund, therefore, this Court deems fit, in the interest of justice, that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing in the appeals on merits by reducing the pre-deposit of 75% of determined amount.

¶43

Accordingly, instead of entertaining the writ petitions on merits against the impugned orders, the petitioner-company is relegated to avail the remedy of statutory appeal under Section 7- I of the Act, 1952, against the impugned orders before the Tribunal.

¶44

However, it is hereby observed that in case, petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Ten lacs) against the order dated 29.11.2024 and Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen lacs) against the order dated 30.12.2024 and petitioner-company file appeals within a period of 30 days from today before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall entertain the appeals, filed by the petitioner-

[2025:RJ-JP:11052]

[CW-3461/2025]

(5 of 5)

company, and consider and decide the same on merits, as early as possible in accordance with law. In addition, the petitionercompany shall file an undertaking to deposit the remaining amount as per final decision of appeals by the Tribunal.

¶49

It is hereby directed that in case petitioner-company deposits the amount indicated hereinabove against the impugned orders, respondents shall ensure to de-freeze the bank account of petitioner- company by the bank forthwith and shall not proceed to execute the impugned orders until decision of appeals before the Tribunal.

¶50

Stay applications and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶51

A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

¶52

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶53

TN/14,17

M/S H.M.T. Machine Tools Ltd. v. the Regional Commissioner-Ii, Provident Funds Department, Employees Provident Funds Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S H.M.T. Machine Tools Ltd. v. the Regional Commissioner-Ii, Provident Funds Department, Employees Provident Funds Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramprasad Mali Son of Late Shri Chiranji Lal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan Wrestling Association Vs Wrestling Federation of India

State Public Information Officer and Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Vs Shri Ashok Malik S/O Shri Rameshwar Nath

M/S H.M.T. Machine Tools Ltd. Vs the Regional Commissioner-Ii

Bajrang Lal S/O Shri Munshi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jyoti Nargas Wife of Sanjay Kumar Nargas Vs Registrar of Trade Mark