24.09.2025 Item No.15 Ct. No. 30 Aloke WPA 4194 of 2023 Prabir Dutta C & C R Vs. The Union of India & Ors. Ms. Miru Hazra Mr. Tapojit Dey … for the petitioner Mr. Rajib Ray … for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent/RPF to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% upon his due provident fund amount as per Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. Copy served upon the learned counsel appearing for the RPF authority. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has all along worked at the Kolkata office of the respondent company and was posted in Kolkata. 4. It is further submitted that he was never provided with the details of his provident fund account and other related matters during his course of employment. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the RPF authority relying upon an order dated 20th September, 2024 passed in WPA 8228 of 2024 2 submits that this Court has no jurisdiction (territorial) to hear this writ application as the total issue is connected with the authorities at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/RPF authority further submits that a copy of the said report has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit at page 39 and paragraph 9 of the said report is relevant : “9. I submit that M/s Sahara India is covered under the jurisdiction of Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Lucknow vide P.F. Code Number UPLK00013539000 and there is no P.F. Code Number under the jurisdiction of Regional Office, Kolkata. Hence, no Provident Fund contribution was deposited by M/s Sahara India with the Regional Office, Kolkata and as such no amount is lying on account of Provident Fund of M/s Sahara India with the Regional Office, Kolkata.” 7. It is further submitted that it was on the basis of the said report that the Coordinate Bench decided that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Admittedly, the said RPF Code No. is of the employer M/s Sahara India. 8. The establishment in question is Sahara India Limited. It is also submitted on behalf of the PF Authorities that different authorities including the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement 3 Directorate are in seisin of proceedings pertaining to the above establishment. 9. In view of the fact that proceedings have been initiated by the concerned authorities at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding. 10. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Nor has the petitioner been able to demonstrate anything which would attract the jurisdiction of this Court. In view of this above, this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned proceeding. 11. WPA 4194 of 2023 stands dismissed on the ground of maintainability for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 12. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply for redressal of his grievance before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)