SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.255 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Shirin Khajuria, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing), assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 23.09.2024, passed in Appeal No.50 of 2021, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Employee Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow (“the Appeal”). By it, the petitioner has been directed to file details with regard to the contractors. The direction, which has been passed, is as follows:- “For the foregoing reasons appellant is directed to file a list/details of the contractors form whom the workers were engaged by appellant for the period 2013 to 2016, indicating that how many workers were engaged through contractors who were allotted EPF code and how many were not allotted EPF code. As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list on 29.11.2024.” The record reveals that the Regional PF Commissioner conducted an enquiry under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“the Act”), against the petitioner and while determining the dues, directed the petitioner to deposit the assessed dues within the stipulated time. This order has been challenged in the Appeal, in which the above order has been passed. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier also, during the course of hearing in the Appeal, on behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that whatever information it has with regard to the contractors and their PF details, it had already been filed in the appellate stage or in the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act. She would also submit that the petitioner does not keep the details of the workers. Such information may be collected through the contractors by either the Regional PF Commissioner or by the appellate authority. But for that purpose, the petitioner may not be directed to submit such documents, which are not in its custody. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is not providing the information, which it should provide. It is argued that the petitioner should have kept the information under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and under other different statutory provisions. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to supply certain information. There is no question of any grievance by this order. If petitioner does not have this information, it could be simply given in writing in the Appeal specifying that they do not keep this information or they do not have this information for one reason or another. In view of it, this Court does not see any reason, at this stage, to make any interference. Accordingly the petition deserves to be rejected at the admission stage. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani J.) 18.02.2025 RV