- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16000 WP No. 7159 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7159 OF 2025 (L-PF) BETWEEN: LTI MINDTREE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINDTREE LIMITED) GLOBAL VILLAGE, R.V.C.E POST, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS, MR SENTHIL KUMAR, (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N MURTHY SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.ROOPASRI S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY LABOUR DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NO.5,RAFI MARG, BLOCK 'G' NO.6, SANSAD MARG AREA, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, HYDERABAD-500 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ASG) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16000 WP No. 7159 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO ACT ON THE APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION DATED 26.09.2023 AT ANNEXURE-D OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY AND TRANSFER THE EPF APPEAL NO.URSR NO.495/19 (EPF APPEAL NO.418/2017) FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner's appeal in No.EPF/ITB/418/2017 with the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, [for short 'CGIT, Bengaluru'] is transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, [for short `the CGIT, Hyderabad'] with the Presiding Officer, the CGIT, Bengaluru proposing to recuse on personal ground. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16000 WP No. 7159 of 2025 On transfer of the petitioner's appeal to CGIT, Hyderabad, it is registered in EPF Appeal No.URSR/495/2019. The petitioner has filed a representation dated 26.09.2023 with the Secretary, Labour Department, for transfer of the appeal from the CGIT, Hyderabad to the CGIT, Bengaluru. 2. The petitioner contends, amongst others, that the petitioner had applied with the CGIT, Hyderabad for transfer of the appeal to the CGIT, Bengaluru as the incumbent at Bengaluru does not suffer any disability to consider the merits of the appeal, but the CGIT, Hyderabad was of the view that any decision to transfer the proceedings must be by the Secretary, Labour Department, Government of India. The present petition for direction is filed contending that though the representation is filed in September 2023, the Secretary, Labour Department, Government of India has not taken any decision. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16000 WP No. 7159 of 2025 3. It is brought on record that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner's appeal in EPF Appeal No.URSR/495/2019 is dismissed for default, but the petitioner has applied for restoration that is yet to be considered. In fact, these circumstances have been brought on record with the petitioner contending that there is reasonable apprehension of precipitation with the dismissal of the appeal. This Court, on 04.04.2025, has opined that there should be no precipitation and hence this Court has stayed the second respondent's order dated 20.04.2017, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid appeal. 4. Sri S.N. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Gireesha Kodgi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition. It remains indisputable that the petitioner's request for transfer of its appeal from the CGIT, Hyderabad to CGIT, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16000 WP No. 7159 of 2025 Bengaluru will be considered upon restoration of the appeal and for that the petitioner's application for restoration must be considered. If the petitioner shows just cause for the restoration of the appeal, the cause that is set up in this present petition for directions will be reinstated. 5. In the light of this view, this Court is inclined to dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for directions to transfer if the Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of India, despite all the proceedings that are referred to and the present one, does not take a decision even after the restoration of the petitioner's appeal. 6. At this stage, Sri S.N. Murthy, submits that if the petition stands disposed of, the petitioner's reasonable apprehension that there would be precipitation giving effect to the second respondent's order dated 20.04.2017 would remain - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16000 WP No. 7159 of 2025 unaddressed. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is indeed peculiarly placed with the Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of India also not communicating a decision on the representation. There will be a complete adjudication of the petitioner's grievance if firstly the CGIT, Hyderabad decides on the application, and next, if the Secretary, Department of Labour, communicates the decision on the petitioner’s request. 7. This Court opines that if in the meantime, the authorities take any action, there would be indeed precipitation rendering the petitioner's appellate remedy nugatory. Therefore, there must be protection against precipitation until the CGIT, Hyderabad decides on the pending application for restoration of the appeal after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and others concerned, and hence, it will be just to defer the enforcement of the consequences of the second - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16000 WP No. 7159 of 2025 respondent's order dated 20.04.2017. In the light of the aforesaid, the following order: ORDER (A) The Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke this Court's jurisdiction if the Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of India does not act upon the representation even after there is a decision on restoration of its appeal in No.URSR/495/2019. (B) The respondents are directed not to take any precipitative action pursuant to the second respondent's order dated 20.04.2017 until the CGIT, Hyderabad decides upon the merits of the petitioner's application for restoration of the appeal in No.URSR/495/2019; unless the CGIT, before such disposal, decides that it would - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16000 WP No. 7159 of 2025 not be just and reasonable for this arrangement to continue. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9