[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shivaji Udyog Gwalior Through Brij ... vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 1 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1 WP-11063-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11063 of 2026
M/S SHIVAJI UDYOG GWALIOR THROUGH BRIJ LAL BANWANI
Versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raj Kumar Goyal- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Impugned order cated 23.03.2026 (vida Annexure-P/1) passed
by the Respondent No. 2/3-Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner (Shri Satya Vardhan Gautam) may kindly be
quashed and also,
(ii) Summons dated 18.03.2028 (vide Annexure P12 and P/3)
issued by the Respondent No. 2/3 Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner (Shri Satya Vardhan Gautam) in violation of its
own order sheet dated 05.04.20232, 10.04 2023 and order dated
16.12.2022 passed by the Hon'ble CGIT, Lucknow may kindly be
quashed and also
(iii) It may kindly be held that on 16.03.2026 and 26 03 2028.
Regional Provident Fund the Respondent No. 2/3 Commissioner
(Shri Satya Vardhan Gautam) could not have proposed
"Assessment" about alleged evasion as the disoute of applicability
under Clause (a) sub section (1) of Section 7A of the EPF Act was
required to be adjudicated for the duration 2/2003 to 7/2003 in
terms of order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the CGIT, Lucknow
and hence, the Respondent No 2/3 Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner (Shn Satya Vardhan Gautam) has acted illegally,
arbitrarily, malafidaty and in palpable violation of order dated
15.12.2022 of the Hon'ble CGIT, Lucknow and its own order
2 WP-11063-2026
sheets cated 06.04.2023/10.04.2023 and also,
(iv) It may also be held that in view of express provision under sub
section (3A) of Section 7A of the EPF Act, the Respondent No.
2/3 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Shri Satya Vardhan
Gautam) has acted illegally and in arbitrary manner while
assuming powers and authority for issuance of "Warrant of
Arrest" under Section 32 of the CPC and also,
(v) It may also be held that the Respondent No. 2/3-Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner (Shri Satya Vardhan Gautam) has
knowingly acted illegally while issuing "Warrant of Arrest" in
palpable violation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench
in Vinod Tiwari (supra) and/or
(vi) Any other relief in favour of the petitioner institution may also
be granted, if the facts and circumstances of the case permit in the
interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in issuing a warrant of arrest for
non-production of documents is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is
contended that the issue is no longer res integra, having already been settled
by a Division Bench of this Court long back. Despite the existence of such
binding precedent, the respondent authority has proceeded to issue the
impugned warrant in complete disregard of the settled position of law. The
action of the respondent is therefore ex facie unsustainable, contrary to
established legal principles, and liable to be set aside.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner establishment had duly
participated in the proceedings and filed its written submissions and
expressed its willingness for conclusion of the inquiry. Accordingly, the
matter was reserved for final orders in terms of the directions issued by the
Hon'ble CGIT vide order dated 16.12.2022. Once the proceedings stood
concluded and the matter was reserved for orders, there remained no
3 WP-11063-2026
justification for reopening the inquiry or initiating fresh coercive steps. The
subsequent issuance of summons dated 27.02.2026, followed by the
impugned order dated 23.03.2026 issuing a warrant of arrest, is alleged to be
mala fide and actuated by an oblique motive.
4. Learned counsel emphasizes that the inquiry pertains to a limited
period from February 2003 to July 2003, and the petitioner had, on multiple
occasions, already furnished all requisite documents on 28.04.2005,
05.05.2005, 11.05.2005, and 16.05.2005, which is also reflected in the order
sheets of the proceedings. The matter has thus remained pending for over two
decades without any justification. In such circumstances, reopening the
inquiry and resorting to coercive measures is not only arbitrary but also
impermissible under law. It is specifically contended that in view of the
express bar contained under sub-section (3A) of Section 7-A of the EPF Act,
the authority lacks the power to issue a warrant of arrest in such proceedings.
On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 23.03.2026
passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
grievance raised by the petitioner does not survive inasmuch as the warrant
of arrest has already been recalled by the competent authority on 30.03.2026.
It is further contended that the proceedings have been pending since the year
2003, and the delay is attributable to the non-cooperative conduct of the
petitioner. It is pointed out that on an earlier occasion, when the petitioner
had approached this Court, specific directions were issued requiring the
petitioner to cooperate in the inquiry proceedings; however, despite such
4 WP-11063-2026
directions, the petitioner has failed to extend necessary cooperation and has
not produced the relevant documents as required by the authority. According
to the State, the petitioner is deliberately avoiding compliance and attempting
to stall the proceedings, and therefore, no interference is warranted.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court finds that insofar as the challenge to the warrant of arrest
dated 23.03.2026 is concerned, the same has admittedly been rendered
infructuous in view of the subsequent order dated 30.03.2026 whereby the
said warrant has already been recalled by the competent authority.
Accordingly, no further adjudication is required on that aspect.
7. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, particularly the long pendency of the proceedings and the rival
submissions regarding cooperation in the inquiry, it is deemed appropriate, in
the interest of justice, to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit
such documents as may be required, if not already submitted, before the
concerned authority. It is further directed that upon receipt of such
documents and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
the competent authority shall proceed to decide the matter expeditiously and
strictly in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
5 WP-11063-2026
ojha
