HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33110 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. The order dated 10.5.2024 was passed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner in terms of the proceedings initiated under section 7 A of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952. By the aforesaid order the petitioner was directed to deposit the wages for the period March, 2013 to January, 2015 (23 months), i.e. a sum of Rs. 5,83,142/-. 3. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order was passed in an ex-parte manner and without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with, a notice of demand to the defaulter was issued by the Recovery Officer on 25th April, 2025 and, thereafter, again on 31st July, 2025. Aggrieved against the aforesaid the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. It is further argued by Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as stated in paragraph no. 6 that the M/S Chemichrome Industries Pvt. Ltd on 1st March, 2012 entered into a lease agreement with M/S Hi Fi International whereby M/S Hi Fi International shall run the business of Restaurant and Hotel and letting of halls in the premises as specified in Schedule 'B' (Boundaries of the portion of 84/79 G.T. Road) w.e.f. 1st March, 2012 to January, 2013. It is further stated that the said lease agreement was given for a period of 11 months, i.e. March, 2012 to January, 2013 and after the expiry of the said period, lease agreement has not been extended and petitioner has also vacated the lease premises. The petitioner's business has also been closed. Petitioner has also not engaged any employee or workman for the period of March/2013 to January/2015. It is further argued that at no point of time any notice or opportunity of hearing was provided by the respondent no. 2 before passing the order dated 10th May, 2024. In this view of the matter it is argued that since the aforesaid order has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice the same is liable to be set aside and consequently the subsequent recovery citation and warrant of arrest are also liable to be set aside. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Jagdish Pathak M/S Hi Fi International And Another .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. It is argued that though in the order impugned passed by respondent no. 2 it is mentioned that several time notices were issued to the petitioner but in spite of the same non appeared before the respondent no. 2, in response to the same it is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that all the notices were issued on a wrong address and the same was never received by the petitioner. 6. It is further argued by Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 that against the aforesaid order statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file an appeal as provided under section 7 I of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of record it transpires that the order dated 10th May, 2024 was passed by the respondent no. 2 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in this view of the matter the Court is of the opinion that the order dated 10th May, 2024 passed by respondent no. 2, is liable to be set aside and hereby set aside. 9. In case the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the respondent no. 2 within a period of six weeks from today, the respondent no. 2 will hear and decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, most expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of such representation along with certified copy of this Order before the respondent No.2. The amount so deposited with the respondent no.2 will be subject matter of final outcome of the decision taken by the respondent No.2 in the matter. 10. It is made clear that in case, the amount will not be deposited by the petitioner, the respondents are free to go ahead with the matter. (Prakash Padia,J.) September 19, 2025/Arti WRIC No. 33110 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad