Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/19 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 19 September, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010185522025
2025:GAU-AS:12956-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/265/2025
PALLORBUND TEA LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 3B, LALBAZAR
STREET, KOLKATA-700001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. CHANDRA
PRAKASH AGARWAL, S/O. LT. RAMAUTAR AGARWAL, RESIDING AT 75/62,
S.N. ROY ROAD, KOLKATA-700038
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI, ASSAM, 781006
2:THE SECRETARY CUM PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
SILCHAR ZONAL OFFICE
CACHAR
ASSAM
788001
3:THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
SILCHAR ZONAL OFFICE
CACHAR
ASSAM
788001
4:THE RECOVERY OFFICER
ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
SILCHAR ZONAL OFFICE,
CACHAR, PIN-788001, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/19
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SOHAING, MR. J KALITA,MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
Advocates for the appellant : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Counsel,
: Mr. J. Kalita, Adv.
Advocates for the respondents : Mr. R. Sarma, Adv for R.No. 2, 3 & 4.
: Ms. S. Sharma, Adv. for R. No. 1.
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Date of hearing : 08.09.2025
Date of Judgment (CAV) : 19.09.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(A. M. Kalita, J)
Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.
J. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr.
R. Sarma, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 as
well as Ms. S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.
1.
2. The instant writ appeal has been filed against the order dated
04.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 4066/ 2023,
whereby the appellant company was directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.5,00,000,00/- (Rupees Five Crores) with the respondent No. 2
Organization, on or before 05.09.2025 and till the aforesaid date, the
Page No.# 3/19
respondent No. 2 Organization was directed not to take any coercive
action against the appellant-company. It was further directed that the
interim protection so granted to the appellant-company, shall stand
lapsed and the respondent No. 2 Organization would be at liberty to
institute steps for recovery of the dues as permissible under the law,
without any further reference to the Court in the event, the appellant-
company failed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000,00/-
( Rupees Five Crores).
3. It may be relevant herein to summarize the facts giving rise to the
instant writ appeal hereinbelow:-
(a) the appellant-company has been dealing with the production of
tea within the territory of Assam which is in the category of a loss
making company. On 01.02.2022, vide a notice No. PF/Zo-
Sil/2022/C-78/1857-59, the appellant-company was issued a final
reminder by Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Silchar Zone, Cachar (the
respondent no. 3) for depositing P.F. contribution and 15% interest
amounting to Rs.3,32,10,925.62/-( Rupees Three Crores Thirty Two
Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine Hundred & Twenty Five) only to the
respondent no. 2 organisation. In response to the aforesaid notice,
the appellant-company submitted a representation stating that
nearly 150 acres of land belonging to the appellant-company near
the Airport was under acquisition by the Ministry of defence, and
therefore, stated that immediately after the receipt of the
compensation amount, the appellant-company would pay the entire
dues at one go. Immediately, after getting the information about
Page No.# 4/19
such ongoing acquisition of land by the Ministry of Defence, the
respondent No. 2 Organization wrote a letter dated 31.03.2022 to
the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar District, requesting him to pass
an order for payment of Rs. 3,67,18,349.6 (Rupees Three Crores
Sixty Seven Lakhs Eighteen Thousand & Three Hundred Forty Nine
and Sixty Paisa) only directly to the Board Trustee account of
A.T.E.P.F Organization, in lieu of paying the amount to the
appellant-company in view of the default committed by the
appellant-company in depositing the P.F. dues. Thereafter, the
respondent No. 2 Organization, vide notice of demand dated
02.04.2022 demanded an amount of Rs.3,39,14,190.62/- from the
appellant-company on the strength of the certificate
No.P.F/Recovery/ 2022/C-78/5247 dated 07.03.2022 and mentioned
that if the aforesaid amount was not paid within 15 days from the
date of serving of notice of demand, steps would be taken to
realize the amount in accordance with provisions of the Assam Tea
Plantations Provident Fund Scheme Act, 1955.
(b) After receipt of the aforesaid Demand Notice dated 02.04.2022,
the appellant-company submitted another representation dated 6 th
August, 2022 whereby the appellant-company forwarded a Cheque
amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) to the
respondent No. 2 Organization, stating further that they had
already provided NOC to Air force authority of India for acquisition
of land and once the money was received by them, the respondent
No. 2 Organization would be paid their dues regarding the
Provident Fund at one go. However, though the respondent No. 2
Page No.# 5/19
Organization received the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Lakhs), without giving any further time to the
appellant-company, the respondent No. 2 Organization issued a
notice of attachment dated 08.08.2022, whereby it was ordered
that the immovable property belonging to the appellant-company
shall not be transferred or change in anyway their share or interest
in the items included in the Immovable properties.
(c) Thereafter, on 11.10.2022, the respondent No. 2 Organization
issued another letter to the appellant-company, requesting to pay
the arrear DLI contribution and administrative charges at 15%
interest and to submit Form-A & B for the period from April, 2016
to March, 2022. The respondent No. 3 on 05.11.2022 issued
another letter to the appellant-company, whereby the appellant-
company was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.3,93,626.15/-
( Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand & Six Hundred
Twenty Six) for PF administrative cost within 15 days. Since the
appellant-company did not pay any amount, the respondent No. 3
issued final notice dated 12.01.2023 for default in deposit of PF
administrative cost.
(d) After getting no positive response from the respondents to their
earlier representations, the appellant-company further submitted 2
(two) representations dated 22.02.2022 & 06.03.2022 to the
respondent No. 3, requesting not to take any coercive action
against the company as the company suffered heavy loss due to
COVID-Pandemic. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued another
Page No.# 6/19
letter dated 04.04.2023 to the appellant-company requesting the
appellant-company to deposit a challan of Rs.50,00,000/- ( Rupees
Fifty Lakhs) as mentioned by the appellant-company in its letter
dated 22.02.2023. On 14.07.2023, vide No. PF/Zo.Sil /
2023/Recovery /C-78 /3991-97 issued by the respondent No. 4,
notice for settling a sale proclamation was sent to the appellant-
company, wherein 31.07.2023 was fixed for drawing up
proclamation of sale and settling the terms thereof.
(e) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Notice of Sale Proclamation
dated 14.07.2023, the appellant-company approached this Court by
filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 4066/2023 challenging the
aforesaid proclamation. Vide order dated 28.07.2023, this Court
was pleased to stay the impugned notice, subject to deposit of an
amount of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) by the appellant-
company. It was further made clear that if the aforesaid amount
was not deposited by the appellant-company on or before
14.08.2023, the interim order passed therein shall stand
automatically vacated and the respondents shall be at liberty to
take such action as deemed proper. The appellant-company in
compliance of the aforesaid order, deposited an amount of Rs.
50,01,541/- on 09.08.2023. The matter was again listed before the
learned Single Judge on 16.08.2023, whereon learned Single Judge
directed the appellant-company to pay Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Lakhs) as a condition to the interim order passed earlier.
However, the respondent-company failed to make the payment of
aforesaid amount of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs) and the
Page No.# 7/19
appellant-company ultimately deposited the aforesaid amount of
Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs) in instalments by 26.11.2024.
(f) The respondents filed an Interlocutory Application on
26.06.2025, with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated
28.07.2023, 16.08.2023, 31.07.2024, 03.09.2024 & 11.11.2024
passed in WP(c) No. 4066/2023. It was contended in the I.A. that
the appellant-company was liable to pay around Rs.
8,28,54,005.73/- (Rupees Eight Crores Twenty Eight Lakhs Fifty
Four Thousand and Five only). The I.A. was listed on 04.08.2025,
whereupon the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties,
came to a conclusion that since an amount of Rs.7,61,00,535/- as
compensation for the land acquired from the appellant-company
had been received by the appellant-company, the appellant-
company was to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000,00/- to the
respondent No. 2 Organization on or before 05.09.2025. It was also
directed that subject to the payment of the aforesaid amount of
Rs.5,00,000,00/- (Rupees Five Crore) on or before 05.09.2025, the
respondent No. 2 Organization would not take any coercive action
against the appellant-company and in the event the appellant-
company failed to deposit the aforesaid amount of
Rs.5,00,000,00/-, the interim protection granted to the appellant-
company would stand lapsed and the respondent No. 2
Organization would be at liberty to institute steps for recovery of it's
dues as might be permissible under the law, without any further
reference to the Court of the learned Single Judge.
Page No.# 8/19
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 04.08.2025, the
appellant-company has filed the instant writ appeal challenging the order
dated 04.08.2025.
5. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J.
Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned
order is prima facie illegal, as the aforesaid order was passed in the I.A.
without giving any opportunity to the appellant-company to file an
objection to the same. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has
gone beyond it's jurisdiction in passing the aforesaid order as the
appellant-company, vide it's writ petition No. 4066/2023 challenged the
sale proclamation in pursuance of recovery certificate issued by the
competent authority and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to
have confined itself to the issue regarding the amount mentioned in the
recovery certificate and not beyond the same.
6. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the demand notice
issued by the respondents was for an amount of Rs.3,39,14,190.60/- only
and there was no such demand with any recovery certificate beyond the
said amount. He submitted that the appellant-company has already paid
an amount of Rs.1,39,04,661/- and accordingly, the appellant-company is
liable to pay only the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000,00/- and nothing
beyond that as there is no recovery certificate beyond that amount. He
submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error by directing
the appellant-company to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000,00/-, only on
the basis of a claim raised by the respondent No. 2 Organization for
Rs.8,28,54,005.173/-.
Page No.# 9/19
7. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge,
while passing the order dated 04.08.2025, relied on the order dated
09.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.
2439/2025 which was filed by the appellant-company against the Union
of India, the National Highway and Infrastructure corporation Limited and
Others, for non-payment of it's dues by the Union of India for acquisition
of it's land under the National Highways Act, 1956. The learned Senior
counsel submitted that in the aforesaid order dated 09.05.2025, it was
recorded that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner (appellant-
company) submitted that the petitioner was disbursed with a sum of
Rs.5,43,88,432/- and another amount of Rs.2,17,12,103/-, out of the
total amount assessed at Rs.9,68,52,964/- against the acquired land of
the petitioner (appellant-company). Therefore, a submission was made
by the learned counsel before the Writ Court that a sum of
Rs.2,07,52,429/- remained to be disbursed to the appellant-company. He
submitted that the aforesaid submissions were made in connection with
non clearance of dues by the Union Government authorities, for land
acquired by them under the N.H. Act, 1956. Therefore, he submitted that
there was no connection with the aforesaid amount with the instant case,
as the appellant-company from the very beginning in it's representations,
undertook that the dues of the respondent No. 2 Organization would be
paid, as and when the land near the Airport belonging to the appellant-
company, which is in an advanced stage of acquisition by the Defence
Ministry of the Government of India was acquired. He submitted that no
commitment or undertaking was given at any point of time by the
appellant-company to the respondent No. 2 Organization, for payment of
Page No.# 10/19
it's dues from the amount that it would be receiving from the Union
Government, in lieu of it's acquired land under the N.H. Act, 1956. In
view of the aforesaid facts, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the
learned Single Judge has committed an error by relying on a submission
which was made in a different context in a separate writ petition, having
a separate cause of action and scope.
8. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the appellant-company
has been going through bad financial patch after the post COVID Era and
has been paying the salaries to it's employees, utilising the amount it
received from the compensation for the land acquired under the
aforesaid N.H. Act, 1956 and the appellant-company never committed
nor had given any undertaking to pay the dues to the respondent No. 2
organization, out of the aforesaid compensation amount. He further
stressed that, in fact, there was a representation submitted by the
appellant-company that the dues to the respondent No. 2 organization
would be paid at one go, once it receives the compensation amount in
lieu of the acquisition of the land near the Airport by the Defence
Ministry, Govt. of India, which is in an advanced stage, as the appellant-
company has already given the NOC for such acquisition pursuant to a
letter dated 07.08.2025 received from the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Cachar at Silchar (Land Acquisition Branch).
9. The learned Senior counsel submitted that there is no legal authority
with the respondent No. 2 organization, by way of any recovery
certificate issued by any competent authority, for payment of any amount
beyond the aforesaid amount of Rs.Rs.3,39,14,190.60/- and without
Page No.# 11/19
having authority in the hand of the respondent No. 2 organization, the
learned Single Judge has committed an error by directing the appellant-
company to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000,00/- in addition to the amount
already paid by the appellant-company to the respondent No. 2
organization.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Senior counsel submitted that
the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 may be set aside and
quashed/modified/ recalled.
11. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents
submitted that the appellant-company is a defaulter in payment of its
statutory dues to the respondent No.2 organization for a long time and
presently, the default amount is more than Rs.8,28,54,005.73/- and due
to the same, the labourers employed by the appellant-company are
suffering without any fault of theirs.
12. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submitted that
the appellant-company had already received an amount of Rs.9.5 crores
from Bharat Mala Scheme but they failed to honour the dues to the
respondent No. 2 organization.
13. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submitted that an
undertaking was given by the appellant-company to the effect that on
receipt of compensation for land acquisition, the entire amount of the
dues would be paid to the respondent No. 2 organization at one go.
However, the appellant-company failed to pay the dues to the respondent
No. 2 organization. He submitted that the amount that is due to the
respondent No. 2 organization is a statutory amount that the appellant-
Page No.# 12/19
company has to pay to the respondent No. 2 organization, as part of the
money comes from the amount deducted by the appellant-company from
the wages of the labourers. Therefore, he submitted that non payment of
such amount to the respondent no. 2 organization is totally illegal and
not warranted under the law.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
Interlocutory Application in the writ petition No. 4066/2023 had to be
filed due to the fact that there was a stay operating against the notice of
sale proclamation dated 14.07.2023 and due to the aforesaid stay,
without the vacation of the stay, the respondent No. 2 organization was
unable to proceed with the recovery of the dues from the appellant-
company. Therefore, he submitted that there is no wrong committed by
the learned Single Judge in directing the appellant-company to deposit
the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000,00/- as the appellant-company has
already received more than Rs.7,00,000,00/- as compensation for
acquisition of it's land.
15. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that total
accumulated dues including the arrears and interest as on 31.08.2025 is
at Rs.8,11,30,010.37/-. He submitted that the incidents of labour unrest
are occurring and cases under Plantation of Labour Act, 1951 have also
been lodged against the management of the appellant-company, for non
fulfilment of the statutory obligations like wages, ration etc., on the part
of the appellant-company. He submitted that many of the labourers are
retiring and non payment of the statutory dues of provident funds may
cause huge unrest amongst the labourers, especially due to the fact that
Page No.# 13/19
the puja celebration is forth coming.
16. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Standing counsel for the
respondents submitted that there was no wrong in passing of the
aforesaid order dated 04.08.2025 by the learned Single Judge in the
typical factual matrix, and therefore, he prays for no interference by this
Court, at this stage.
17. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and
also perused the materials brought before this Court.
18. We have seen that in view of the recurring dues by the appellant-
company to the respondent No.2 organization, a final reminder dated
01.02.2022 was issued to the appellant-company by the respondent No.
3 for an amount of Rs.3,32,10,925.62/- which included the PF
contribution for the years starting from 2016-2020 and 15% interest
thereon. In response to the aforesaid final reminder, the appellant -
company issued a letter dated 18.02.2022, whereby the appellant
company mentioned about various losses that they had to face due to
various factors including the COVID Lockdown. However, the appellant-
company emphasized that a land measuring 150 acres near the Airport
was in the process of acquisition by the Ministry of Defence and the
appellant-company gave an undertaking that it would settle the entire
dues in one go once they receive the aforesaid compensation amount in
lieu of the land acquired from the appellant-company. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid letter containing the undertaking is reproduced
herein below:-
"We would like to bring to your notice our nearly 150 acres of land
Page No.# 14/19
near the Airport from our division Scottpore in under navigation
with Ministry of Defence and at final stage, D.C. office monitoring
the same and we are very close to get a huge remuneration of
above land from Defence Ministry and give undertaking that we will
square the entire dues in one go immediate after receiving it from
the Government".
19. After the aforesaid representation, the respondent No. 3 went
ahead by requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar District to pass an
order for payment of Rs.3,67,18,349.64/-directly to the Board of trustee
account of ATEPF organization, once the appellant-company received any
payment from the Government of India as compensation for acquisition
of land belonging to the Appellant-company. However, the recovery
officer i.e. respondent No. 4 issued the aforesaid notice of demand dated
02.04.2022 as authorized by the certificate dated 07.03.2022 issued by
the authorized officer of the Board of Trustees for recovery of an amount
of Rs.3,39,14,190.62/-. It is seen that on receipt of the aforesaid demand
notice, the appellant-company again reiterated by it's representation
dated 06.08.2022 that it was serious about paying the provident fund
dues and requested time till September, 2022, as it was going to get the
land value of 150 acres of land which was to be acquired by the Indian
Air Force. Therefore, it offered Rs.50,000,00/- by issuing a Cheque to the
respondent No. 2 organization and further mentioned that as the NOC
had already been provided to the Indian Air Force, once the money for a
land acquisition would be received by it, the dues to the respondent No.
2 organization would be paid in one go. It is seen that the appellant-
company already gave an undertaking, vide it's letter dated 22.02.2023,
Page No.# 15/19
as aforesaid, that the dues to the respondent No. 2 organization would
be cleared once it receives the compensation amount from the Indian Air
Force. It is seen that extension of time for payment of dues was given to
the appellant-company time to time by the respondents. However, finally
the notice for settling sale proclamation was issued by the respondent
No. 4 to the appellant-company for execution of certificate dated
07.03.2022.
20. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the appellant-company
had failed to honour its dues to the respondent No. 2 organization.
However, it is clear from the facts that the undertaking given by the
appellant-company, whatsoever, was in respect of the compensation in
lieu of the land acquisition by the Defence Ministry belonging to the
appellant-company near the Air port. The undertaking that was given by
the appellant-company was never for any other compensation that it had
received or it would be receiving for acquisition of any other land. This
would however, not take away the fact that the legitimate dues pertaining
to the PF contribution payable by the appellant, which has been building
up over the years would have to be paid by the appellant, even from
money it receives from other sources, unless the appellant is able to
show that the due amount is wrongly calculated. At this point of time, it
may be relevant to reproduce hereinbelow, the following paragraphs from
the order dated 04.08.2025:-
"13 A perusal of the said contentions made by the petitioner
company, in paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 of the present writ
petition; would go to reveal that the petitioner-company had
Page No.# 16/19
undertaken to clear the dues of respondent No. 2
organization, on being remitted the compensation against the
acquisition of its land.
14 The compensation amount, in question, having been
released to the respondent No. 2 organization, as can be
culled out from the order, dated 09.05.2025, passed by a
Coordinate bench of this Court in WP (C) 2439/2025;the
petitioner company ought to have fulfilled the said
undertaking made, on oath, in the present proceeding. The
petitioner company, has however, failed to fulfil the said
undertaking.
15 In view of the above position, this Court noticing the
undertaking made by the petitioner in the present proceeding
and also noticing the fact that the petitioner company has
already been remitted at an amount of Rs.7,61,00,535/- as
compensation, for the land acquired from it; directs the
petitioner company to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000,00/-
only, with the respondent No. 2 organization, on or before
05.09.2025".
21. It is seen from paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 of the writ petition No.
4066/2023, that though an undertaking was given by the appellant-
company, but the same was given with respect to the compensation that
it would be receiving for acquisition of 150 acres of land by the Air Force
Authority. It is also seen from various representations submitted by the
appellant-company before the respondents that the undertaking was, in
Page No.# 17/19
fact, regarding the land that Air Force Authority is acquiring. However,
there is no bar for the respondents to make a claim for payment of the
PF dues from the appellant, from the money received by the appellant
from other sources.
22. We have also seen that the recovery certificate issued by the
competent authority was in respect of a liability of Rs.3,39,14,190.62/-
only and out of this amount, an amount of Rs.1,39,04,661/- has already
been paid by the appellant-company to the respondent No. 2
organization. Therefore, though the respondents have claimed an amount
of Rs.8,11,30,010.37/- (as on 31.08.2025), the respondents do not
possess any certificate issued by any competent authority beyond the
aforesaid amount of Rs.Rs.3,39,14,190.62/-. In fact, the issue in the writ
petition is the challenge to the notice of sale proclamation corresponding
to certificate dated 07.03.2022 and the notice of attachment dated
08.08.2022, wherein, the amount involved is Rs.Rs.3,39,14,190.62/-.
Therefore, We are of the considered view that by the aforesaid direction
to the appellant-company for payment of Rs.5,00,000,00/- to the
respondent no. 2 organisation vide it's order dated 04.08.2025, the
learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition
No. 4066/2023.
23. Upon consideration of the materials available before this Court
regarding the undertaking given by the appellant-company, it is seen that
though the undertaking given by the appellant-company was in fact in
respect of compensation it would be receiving in lieu of acquisition of its
land by the Indian Air Force and not relating to its compensation it has
received for acquisition of its land under the N.H. Act, 1956, the PF dues
Page No.# 18/19
payable by the appellant can be realised from it's money received from any
source, especially when the appellants have the money to liquidate their
dues.
24. In view of the aforesaid findings arrived at by this Court, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 ought to be
set aside with the following directions:-
(i) The direction for payment of Rs.5,00,000,00/- by the
appellant-company to the respondent No. 2 organization is set
aside. However, the unpaid balance amount from the Demand
Notice dated 02.04.2022 for Rs.3,39,14,190.62/- should be paid
within one month from today, unless it can be shown that the
said amount is an incorrect amount. If it is found that the
amount claimed by the Demand Notice dated 02.04.2022 is
incorrect at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the excess
amount paid by the appellant, if any, shall be adjusted from the
subsequent build up of unpaid PF dues payable by the
appellant.
(ii) As far as the stay order passed vide order dated 28.07.2023
is concerned, the same cannot be a bar for the respondents to
make a demand and to take action for non-payment of PF dues
that accrued and became payable by the appellants, subsequent
to the amount claimed after issuance of the Notice of Demand
dated 02.04.2022 for Rs.3,39,14,190.62/- and the letter
No.PF/Zo-Sil/2023/Recovery/C-78/2761-63 dated 03.02.2023 for
recovery of Rs.4,38,59,614.24/-.
(iii) The stay order dated 28.07.2023 is accordingly vacated.
Page No.# 19/19
25. The instant writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
