- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22914 WP No. 18276 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 18276 OF 2025 (L-PF) BETWEEN: KALASA ESTATE, KALASA VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 124, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SO.S.SOCKLINGAM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B C PRABHAKARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - II REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN KHB, 5TH PHASE, CHIKKAMALURU - 577 102. 2. REGISTRAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM SADAN, G.G PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESWANTHAPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH V/O/DT 30.06.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED- 17.3.2025 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN DEFECTIVE APPEAL NO.5/2025 (ANNEXURE-F). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22914 WP No. 18276 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 2. This petition is filed to quash the order dated 17.03.2025 in Defective Appeal No.5/2025 before Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court (for short 'CGIT') Bangalore. 3. The petitioner claims that he was aggrieved by the order at Annexure-A under Section 7A of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is further stated that there were certain defects in the appeal filed before the CGIT, and the appeal came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the objections raised by the Registry. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is only between the petitioner and CGIT and the private party before CGIT is not concerned with the impugned order. 5. It is noticed that the impugned order dismissing the appeal certainly gives a kind of relief to the private party. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22914 WP No. 18276 of 2025 However, since the appeal is not dismissed on merits and it is dismissed for a reason that office objections were not complied, the impugned order is set-aside granting liberty to the petitioner to remove office objections within 4 weeks from today. 6. It is further made clear that in case, private party is aggrieved by this order, private party is at liberty to move this Court for appropriate relief. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35