Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010195462025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5075/2025 THE BAGASA PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT- ALHAJ SABRY AHMED CENTRE, P.O. RATANPUR, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR-6, KAMRUP, ASSAM 2:THE ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CUM PF COMMISSIONER HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NIDHI BHAWAN BASISTHA LALMATI NH-37 GUWAHATI-781029 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 3:THE CHAIRMAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION NIDHI BHWAN BASISTHA LALMATI NH-37 GUWAHATI-781029 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 4:THE SECRETARY CUM PF COMMISSIONER BOARD OF TRUSTEES ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION NIDHI BHWAN BASISTHA LALMATI NH-37 GUWAHATI-781029 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 5:THE RECOVERY OFFICER ATEPFO TAZPUR ZONE ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION NIDHI BHWAN NIKAMUL SATRA MAZGAON TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784154. 6:THE FUND CONTROL OFFICER ASSAM TEA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION NIDHI BHWAN B.B. ROAD AMOLAPATTY P.O. AND DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMA, MR. LENTSO,MR. K KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. K KAKOTI, SC, ATEPFO BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 03.09.2025 Heard Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. Sarma, learned Page No.# 3/5 Standing Counsel, ATEPFO for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. The State of Assam is represented by Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 3. The petitioner, which is a Private Limited Company in the business of tea plantations, had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/3854/2025, in which the principal challenge was against an order dated 04.07.2025 issued by the Recovery Officer of the respondent - Organization in connection with the recovery proceeding. The primary contention of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition was that the notice dated 04.07.2025 was not even issued to the petitioner but to the Mazdoor Union though it is the petitioner which is the most affected party. This Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 had disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Secretary-cum-Provident Fund Commissioner, Board of Trustees, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization to have the hearing by giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, including personal hearing. The same was accordingly done culminating in an order dated 05.08.2025, by which certain directions for payment have been made. 4. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is mainly based on two grounds and both the grounds are fallacious. He has submitted that the aspect of dishonour of cheques in respect of making earlier payments have been settled between the parties. The other aspect with regard to issuing 24 cheques instead of 36 cheques is irrelevant, as the amount covered by the 24 cheques would satisfy the entire amount. Page No.# 4/5 5. Shri Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents - ATEPFO has, on the other hand submitted that it is not in dispute that against the order dated 05.08.2025, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which is pending consideration. He submits that parallel proceedings are not maintainable. 6. Shri Chodhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has responded that the aforesaid fact of preferring the appeal has not only been clearly disclosed, the appeal itself has been annexed to the writ petition and the only reason of approaching this Court was because of the fact that 31.08.2025 was the deadline for making the payments and the petitioner apprehends that there can be adverse action taken as payments have not been able to be made on or before the time fixed. He has however submitted that it is not the amount which is disputed but the manner which has been prescribed for payment which is the subject matter of dispute. 7. After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised in this writ petition assailing the grounds of passing the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 can be very well considered and adjudicated by the appellant authority before whom the appeal appears to have been preferred on 13.08.2025. This Court has also observed that the said appeal also contains an interim order for stay of the letter dated 05.08.2025. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the entire matter is before the appellant authority, the petitioner would be at liberty to press the interim prayer which the appellant authority would be under a legal obligation to consider and pass necessary orders. It is also directed that for the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner be given a personal hearing through its representative. It is needless to state that such consideration has however to be done strictly in accordance with law. Page No.# 5/5 9. It is further clarified that if any person is aggrieved by the decision taken by the appellate authority, he would be at liberty to approach this Court, if so advised. 10. To balance the equities, it is provided that till such consideration of the interim prayer by the appellate authority, no coercive action be taken by the respondent nos. 2 to 6 against the petitioner qua the impugned order dated 05.08.2025. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant