[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Chiral Bio-Sciences Ltd vs Central Board Of Trustees on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.422 of 2026
Dated: 15.04.2026
Between:
Chiral Bio-Sciences Ltd.,
and another.
...Appellants
and
Central Trust of Trustees,
Rep. by the Chairman,
Central Board of Trustees (EPFO),
Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhavan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110 011,
and 3 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Sri E.S.Sanjeeva Rao, representing learned
counsel Ms. Swetha Thakur, appears for the appellants.
Learned counsel Sri D.Raghavendar Rao appears for the
respondents.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 03.12.2025
passed by the learned writ court dismissing W.P.No.25847 of 2025 filed
by the appellants.
3. The learned writ court refused to interfere in the order dated
17.09.2024 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, "the
Act"), whereby respondent No.4 has determined the provident fund dues
of Rs.1,34,73,725/- upon best judgment assessment. The consequential
recovery proceedings initiated under Section 8B and 8G of the Act,
including the prohibitory order in E.P.F.C.P.3 dated 24.06.2025 for
Rs.1,60,79,005/- and the show cause notice before issuance of warrant
of arrest under E.P.F.C.P.25, dated 30.07.2025, issued pursuant to the
recovery certificate were also challenged in the writ petition. The
learned writ court upheld the action of respondent No.4 in initiating the
proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, the determination made and
the consequential proceedings as being proper in the eye of law. The
learned writ court also took into account that about 60 adjournments
were granted over a period of two years and more from the date of
initiation of the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act till the
impugned assessment order was passed on the basis of best judgment
assessment on available evidence, including the financial documents.
Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
4. On the plea of alternative remedy of appeal against the order
passed under Section 7A of the Act, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the consequential orders under Section 8B and 8G of the
Act, the prohibitory order and the show cause notice are not amenable to
the appellate authority under Section 7-I of the Act. On merits, it has
been contended that respondent No.4 conducted the original proceedings
under Section 7A of the Act in violation of principles of natural justice
denying the opportunity to rebut the grounds taken by it for assessment
of the alleged outstanding dues of the employees under the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
contended that despite 60 adjournments granted to the employer, due to
non-production of the statutory records, the authority had been left with
no other option than to determine the dues on available materials,
including the financial statements and balance sheets. The authority also
relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Panther Security
Service (P) Ltd. v. EPFO 1. Learned counsel for the respondents has
also taken a plea that the appellants have approached the learned writ
court without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal under Section
7-I of the Act.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking note
of the relevant materials placed on record, we are of the view that
determination of outstanding dues under Section 7A of the Act are
amenable to the appellate remedy provided under Section 7-I of the Act,
hedged with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the
Act. All contentious issues on facts and on law can be raised before the
appellate authority. The appellants have failed to avail the appellate
remedy by straightaway approaching the writ court. The consequential
proceedings under Section 8B and 8G of the Act and the prohibitory
orders have been issued only due to non-payment of adjudged dues by
the employer-appellants. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the
appellants seeks liberty to approach the appellate authority with an
application for condonation of delay and statutory deposit, subject to any
waiver granted under the proviso to Section 7-O of the Act by the
appellate authority. He submits that the appellate authority may be
2020 SCC OnLine SC 981
directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically, since the
appellants were pursuing their remedy before this court.
7. On consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and on
the facts and circumstances noted above, since the appellants also have
raised contentious issues on merits relating to determination of dues
under Section 7A of the Act, we are inclined to grant liberty to the
appellants to approach the appellate authority and raise all such grounds
of law and facts that are available to them. Let such appeal be filed
within a period of three weeks with an application for condonation of
delay and with statutory deposit, subject to any waiver granted under the
proviso to Section 7-O of the Act by the appellate authority. Needless to
say, the appellate authority shall consider the question of delay
sympathetically taking into account the period spent by the appellants in
pursuing the remedy before this court.
8. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
liberty. Let it be made clear that no observations made on merits by the
learned writ court or by this court would influence the appellate
authority in taking the decision in accordance with law. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
15.04.2026
vs
