- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7128 WP No. 918 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 918 OF 2025 (L-PF) BETWEEN: M/S SHREERAM AND SONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 139/B, 3RD PHASE KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, PEENYA, BANGALORE-560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. SHARAD BHAGWAT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.HEMANTH R. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER REGIONAL OFFICE, EPFO, NO.62, PRAGATHI MAHALAKSHMI BUILDING INDUSTRIAL AREA, 2ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560 022. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED: 19.05.2022 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL CUM LABOUR COURT IN EPF NO. 47/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7128 WP No. 918 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Bengaluru, in EPF/ITB No.47/2021. 2. In terms of the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as a condition prescribed for staying the operation of the order awarding damages. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the conditional order directing the deposit of damages is erroneous and unsustainable. It is his submission that this being the discretionary order, the Appellate Authority ought not to have insisted for payment of deposit of damages before hearing on the conditions prescribed for staying the operation of the order awarding damages. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7128 WP No. 918 of 2025 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the Appellate Authority has exercised discretion in directing payment of 30% of the amount to be deposited and there is no scope for interfering the said discretionary order. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the counsel and perused the records. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Golden Facilitation Services Private Limited Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (in WP.No.4500/2023) in terms of order dated 11.11.2024 has held that such a direction to deposit a part of the damages under Section 14B of EPF Act is unsustainable and accordingly set aside the said order. In the instant case, the direction is not a condition precedent to file an appeal but to grant stay order. Since it is noticed that Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, provides for awarding damages by way of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7128 WP No. 918 of 2025 discretion, this Court is of the view that the direction to deposit 30% of the amount of damages is unreasonable. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Bengaluru, in EPF/ITB No.47/2021, is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits, without insisting for deposit of 30% damages as ordered in the impugned order. (iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10