Disposed

Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Indian Red Cross Society

Telangana HC22 Jan 2025WA/89/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPFO challenged a Single Judge order directing it on PF dues from April 2006, which rested on a 14.05.2010 notification without examining its retrospective applicability. The Division Bench set aside the order and remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision, permitting filing of relevant notifications.

What the court decided

AI extract

Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

|³⁴³⁷ |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2025

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order Dahed 2510612024, in^\N.P. No. 23184 of 2012 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, lrilinistry of Labour, Government of lndia, Regional Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

¶11

Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

¶12

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,^(Comp.lll), Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

(RESPONDENTS tN W.P. 23184 OF 2012),

¶15

AND

¶16

lndian Red Cross Society, (Constituted under Act XV of 1920) Having its A.P. State Branch Headquarters At Rajbhavan. Hyderabad and lts administrative office at 3-6-212, Street No.15, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, Represented by its General Secretary

¶17

...RESPONDENTS(PETtTtONER IN W.P. 23184 OF 2012)

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^may suspend the orders^(dated 2510612024)^passed in WP No.^{23184 ot} 2012 by lhe Learned Single Judge until the main Writ Appeal is decided.

¶20

¶21

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to pay the P.F. dues for the period from 0110412006 onwards, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal

¶23

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI C. LALIT KUMAR REDDY, sRt. M.P. KASHYAP (SC FOR EPFO)

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent: MS. B. NISHITHA, REPRESENTS SRI CH. PUSHYAM KIRAN

¶25

The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶29

WRIT APPEAL No.89 of 2O25

¶30

JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)

¶31

Sri C. Lalit Kumar Reddy, learned counsel represents

¶32

Sri M.P.Kashyap, learned Standing Counsel for Employees Provident Fund Organ ization, for the appellants and Ms. B Nishitha, learned counsel represents Sri CH. Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶33

With the consent, finally heard.

¶34

3 Challenge is mounted to the order of learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No.23184 of 2O12.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, by taking this Court to the operative paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 of impugned order dated 25.06.2024, urged that the writ petitioner was put to summons under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on O9.O5.2O12. The relevant period was from April, 2O06 onwards. The whole order of learned Single Judge is founded upon the notiiication dated^14.05.2010. By referring to the said notification, the learned Standing^CjUA""t for the appellants submits that the ianguage employed in the said

¶36

¶37

notfication makes it clear that it^{is not retrospectivein nature-} This point has not been^{considered by the learned Single Judge.}

¶38

The learned counsel for the^{writ petitioner, on the other} hand, urged that there may^{be certain notifications in existence} which cover the period from April,^{20O6 onwards and if the matter} is remitted to the Writ Court,^{the said notifrcations may be placed} on record.

¶39

Considering the aforesaid arguments,^{it is clear that the} order of learned Single Judge^{is basedon the nol'ificationdated} 14.05.2010 and there is no finding^{as to whether said notification} can be pressed into service with^{retrospective effect i.e., with effect} from April, 2OO6 onwards. No other^{notilication was filed by the} writ petitioner to cover the^period from^{April, 2006 onwards. In} this backdrop, we deem it^{proper to set aside the orderdated} 25.06.2024 passed in W.P. No. 23184 of^{2Ol2 and restorethe} matter before the learned Single Judge.^The writ^{petitioner may file} the relevant notifications which cover^{the period in question. The} Writ Court may decide the matter afresh in^{accordancewith law.}

¶40

7 . The writ appeal is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶46

closed.

¶47

SD/- M.^MANJULA DEP EGISTRAR SE N OFFICER

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

To, or La bo^{u r' Govern m ent or} ,, .rTg:ffiA[:?51"# 'u:?fl^{,Bl,'..11 i} rl"",];^{#'Jl "'} 2. Enforcement^{Officer, Employees ProvidentFund Organisation'Regional} - Offi"", BarkatPura, HYderabad' Commissioner',^{(Comp'lll)-RegionalOffice'} 3. " ffi;i;;;;. Assistant^Provident irouioent -Fund r'iobr.g-'ni"tion' Barkatpura^Hvderabad'

¶50

One CC to^{Sri M.P. Kashvap (SC for EPFO) [OPUC]}

¶51

One CC^{to Sri CH. Pushyam Kiran'AdvocateIOPUC]} 6. Two^{CD CoPies} TJ GJP @)

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210112025

JUDGMENT

gj e STAI €
i.,'
)
i'
I
o
I 1) 10 r[ts 2[?5 )
6
t
* oi:'lirr .,"u'f 6
r'

¶57

WA.No.89 of 2025

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Indian Red Cross Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Indian Red Cross Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Nagori Vs Income Tax Officer

C. Latha Vs The State of Telangana

B Shivaji, Hyd Vs R. Naga Raju, Hyd and Another

D. Bala Mallaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Sved Basheer Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sangameshwara Rice Mill Vs The Telangana Pollution Control Board