k 1/2 38 wp 5858.19 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5858 OF 2019 Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund ....Petitioner V/S M/s. S.D. Lahane, Pune ....Respondent _________ Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha for the Petitioner. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 12 FEBRUARY 2026. P.C.: 1. The Petition challenges order dated 30 May 2016 passed by Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, allowing the Appeal and setting aside order passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act). 2. I have heard Ms. Bharucha, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by her. I have gone through the ?ndings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order. I have also perused the records of the case ?led alongwith the present Petition. 3. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that except the balance sheet of the Respondent, Petitioner had no material for the purpose of ascertaining the provident fund dues under Section 7A of the katkam Page No. 1 of 2 k 2/2 38 wp 5858.19 as.doc Act. The balance sheet cannot depict the number of employees employed by an organization. It appears that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner conducted an exercise in surmise by assuming manpower on the basis of the job undertaken by the organization. Thus, the liability to pay provident fund is saddled in absence of any concrete information regarding deployment of any particular manpower by the organization. The Tribunal has recorded following ?ndings for setting aside 7A order: “18. It is settled law now a days that any assessment on the basis of balance sheet is not warranted. No power is vested on the Provident Fund authorities to decide whether any particular job requires minimum manpower. Further respondent itself is unknown about those workers, for whom alleged assessment taken place. It is settled law that in absence of identi?ed workmen or employees, who are entitled to such bene?t a liability cannot be saddled upon an establishment in the name of compliance of or enforcement of law. No collection can be made by the PF authorities for faceless, nameless or non- identi?able workmen on the basis of expenditure shown in the balance sheet.” 4. I am in full agreement with the above reasonings recorded by the Tribunal. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 2 of 2 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2026.02.13 15:30:05 +0530