Page No.# 1/ vs The Ministry Of Labour And Employment ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8661 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs The Ministry Of Labour And Employment ... on 19 November, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                               Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010248202025




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:15727

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                       Case No. : WP(C)/6514/2025

         M/S AKASH CONSTRUCTION AND ANR
         HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BLOCK NO 16, K B ROAD ROWRIAH P.O. JORHAT
         P.S. JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS
         DULY AUTHORISED MANAGING PARTNER MR KAMAL JAIN, SON OF LATE
         RATTAN KUMAR JAIN, RESIDENT OF ROWRIAH, JORHAT AIR FIELD, P.O.
         JORHAT, PIN- 785005, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM

         2: KAMAL JAIN
          SON OF LATE RATTAN KUMAR JAIN
          MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S AKASH CONSTRUCTION
          RESIDENT OF ROWRIAH
          JORHAT AIR FIELD
          P.O. JORHAT
          P.S. JORHAT
          DISTRICT- JORHAT
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT AND 5 ORS
         GOVT. OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY
         OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN RAFI MARG
         NEW DELHI-110001.

         2:THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
          EMPLOYEES RPOVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
          MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
          PLATE- A GROUND FLOOR
          OFFICE BLOCK- II
          EAST KIDWAI NAGAR
          NEW DELHI-110023.

         3:THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (NER)
          OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND
                                                             Page No.# 2/10

          COMMISSIONER
          BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN
          G S ROAD
          NEAR BHARALU BRIDGE
          BHANGAGARH
          GUWAHATI-781005.

          4:THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
           (REGIONAL OFFICE
          TINSUKIA) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
          AMAR COMPLEX
           2ND FLOOR
           HIJUGURI
          A T ROAD
          TINSUKIA-786125.

          5:THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
           EMPLOYEES RPOVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
           JORHAT DISTRICT OFFICE
           JAIL ROAD
           NEAR DHALARSATRA PRESS OPPOSITE JAIL ROAD CLUB
           JORHAT-785001.

          6:THE RECOVERY OFFICER
           EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
           JORHAT DISTRICT OFFICE
           JAIL ROAD
           NEAR DHALARSATRA PRESS
           OPPOSITE JAIL ROAD CLUB
           JORHAT-785001




                                  BEFORE
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


Advocates for the petitioner(s)   :   Mr. B Barooah


Advocates for the respondent(s) :     Ms. J Sarma

Ms. S Dasgupta

Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Page No.# 3/10

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 19.11.2025

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment

Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. B Barooah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. J Sarma, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Ms. S Dasgupta, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court assailing the ex- parte order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jorhat under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act of 1952') read with Para 32A of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, Para 5 of the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 and Para 8A of the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. Further to that, the petitioners have also assailed the communication dated 19.06.2025 issued by the Recovery Officer of the Employees' Providence Fund Organization, Jorhat, whereby the application so filed by the petitioners under Section Page No.# 4/10

7A(4) of the Act of 1952 was rejected on the ground that there is no review permissible against such orders.

3. Taking into account the issue involved, this Court issues Rule, making it returnable forthwith.

4. The materials on record shows that on account of certain alleged non-payment, summons were issued to the petitioners, which resulted in the proceedings initiated under Section 14B of the Act of 1952. The said proceedings were continued with the representation of the petitioners. However, on account of the COVID pandemic, the hearing of those proceedings got adjourned and notices were issued to the petitioners to appear virtually. The petitioners, however, alleged that such notices were not received and, as such, the petitioners could not participate in the said proceedings.

5. Be that as it may, in absence of the petitioners, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order on 23.08.2021 ex- parte, thereby directing the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.2,27,076/- under Section 14B and interest on belated remittance under Section 7Q of Rs.1,14,717/- within 15 days else coercive action would be taken against the petitioners under Section 8B to 8G of the Act of 1952. The petitioners further alleged that such order was also Page No.# 5/10

not intimated to the petitioners till the petitioners came to learn that the recovery proceedings were initiated sometime in the year 2022. The petitioners appeared in the said Recovery proceedings and submitted a representation, in the year 2022 itself. However, the same was rejected.

6. It is further seen that in the year 2025, more particularly, on 10.06.2025, the petitioners filed an application under Section 7A(4) of the Act of 1952 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 23.08.2021. The said application, however, was rejected and communicated to the petitioners by the communication dated 19.06.2025 holding inter alia that there was no provision for review of the order passed, once the assessment order is issued and it cannot be reopened for review or to set aside the order as prayed for in the petition. It is under such circumstances, the petitioners had approached this Court.

7. This Court duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

8. The issue involved in the instant proceedings is on a very limited scope, inasmuch as, the Recovery Officer vide the impugned communication dated 19.06.2025 had stated that the application so Page No.# 6/10

filed by the petitioners under Section 7A(4) of the Act of 1952 could not be accepted on the ground that there is no provision for review of the order passed, once the assessment order is issued, it cannot be reopened for review or to set aside the order as prayed for in the petition.

9. Taking into account the above, this Court finds it relevant to take note of Section 7A(1) of the Act of 1952, which is reproduced hereinunder:

"7A. Determination of moneys due from employers.-- (1) The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, by order,-- (a) in a case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of this Act to an establishment, decide such dispute; and (b) determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act, the Scheme or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary".

10. From a perusal of the above provision, it is seen that the authorities mentioned in sub-clause (1) of Section 7A have been empowered to determine the amount due from any employer under any provisions of the Act of 1952, the Scheme or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be.

Page No.# 7/10

11. In the instant case, if this Court duly takes note of the order dated 23.08.2021, it is seen that the said order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 14B of the Act of 1952, read with Para 32A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, Para 5 of the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 and Para 8A of the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. Therefore, the order dated 23.08.2021 is an order passed in terms with Section 7A(1)(b) of the Act of 1952.

12. Now, let this Court take note of Section 7A(4), which being relevant, is reproduced hereinunder:

"7A(4) Where an order under sub-section (1) is passed against an employer ex parte, he may, within three months from the date of communication of such order, apply to the officer for setting aside such order and if he satisfies the officer that the show cause notice was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the inquiry was held, the officer shall make an order setting aside his earlier order and shall appoint a date for proceeding with the inquiry:

Provided that no such order shall be set aside merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of the show cause notice if the officer is satisfied that the employer had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before the officer."

13. From a perusal of the above-quoted provisions, it would be seen that if an order is passed under sub-section (1) of Section 7A against an employer ex-parte within 3(three) months from the date of communication of such order, an application can be filed for setting Page No.# 8/10

aside such order and subject to satisfaction within the parameters stated therein, the Officer concerned has been empowered to set aside the ex-parte order.

14. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of Section 7B of the Act of 1952. Sub-section (1) of Section 7B being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:

"7B. Review of orders passed under section 7A.--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) of section 7A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order to the officer who passed the order:

Provided that such officer may also on his own motion review his order if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any such ground."

15. From a perusal of the above-quoted Sub-Section, it is apparent that any person aggrieved by an order passed under Subsection (1) of Section 7A of the Act of 1952 on the grounds mentioned therein can apply for review of that order to the Officer who passed the order.

16. In the backdrop of the above provisions, if this Court now takes up the communication dated 19.06.2025, it appears that the said Page No.# 9/10

communication by which the application filed by the petitioners under Section 7A(4) of the Act of 1952 was rejected appears to suffer from perversity, taking into account that the authorities concerned have failed to take note of the above- quoted provisions.

17. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observation(s) and direction(s):

(i). The communication dated 19.06.2025 is set aside and quashed.

(ii). This Court have not decided anything on merits as regards the legality or validity of the order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jorhat.

(iii). The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the respondent No.5 herein is directed to consider the application so filed by the petitioners under Section 7A(4) of the Act of 1952 afresh as per the provisions of law, by giving the petitioners opportunity of hearing.

(iv). This Court, taking into account that steps have been taken for recovery, observes that the respondent authorities shall not take coercive actions against the petitioners till the disposal of the application so filed by the petitioners. It is, however, observed that if the petitioners' delay in the disposal of the said application by not appearing on the date fixed for personal hearing, liberty is granted to Page No.# 10/10

the respondent authorities to take such steps as envisaged under the law for recovery of the dues.

JUDGE

Shivani Gautam Gautam Date: 2025.11.21 18:15:34 +05'30' Comparing Assistant