- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16739 WP No. 23164 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23164 OF 2024 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II REGIONAL OFFICE-BENGALURU (KORAMANGALA), BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX, NO. 371/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560068 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: B. R. VISHWAS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S VISHWAS CONCRETE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 80/85, 3RD MAIN ROAD, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU-560002 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B. K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16739 WP No. 23164 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 14.03.2024 (ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CGIT ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 70 OF THE EPF AND MP ACT; QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 14.03.2024 (ANNX-B) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CGIT ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 71 OF THE EPF AND MP ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner [the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II Compliance, Bengaluru] has filed this writ petition calling in question the orders dated 14.03.2024 [Annexures - A and B] by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in EPF Appeal No.16/2024. The Tribunal, by this impugned order, has admitted the appeal subject to deposit of 30% of Rs.82,03,014/- while staying the operation of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16739 WP No. 23164 of 2024 order dated 17.05.2022 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bengaluru under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. The petitioner has called in question the Tribunal’s orders dated 14.03.2024 contending that the appeal is belated, and the Tribunal could not have entertained the appeal in a manner condoning the delay and without a complete deposit. If Ms. Nandita Haldipur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks interference with the Tribunal's impugned orders reiterating the afore, Mr. Prashanth B.K., the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the petition is rendered infructuous. 3. Mr. Prashanth B.K. elaborates that after the Tribunal’s impugned orders, the petitioner has deposited 30% as is required, but upon receipt of an E-mail from the office of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bengaluru, the respondent has - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16739 WP No. 23164 of 2024 deposited the remaining 70% without any caveat. When queried, the learned counsel submits that because the entire amount has thus been deposited reserving no right, the appeal with the Tribunal is rendered infructuous and with the appeal having become thus infructuous, the petition would not survive for consideration. 4. Mr. Prashanth B. K. also seeks to emphasize that there is no default in ensuring copy of the appeal papers are served duly on the petitioner and the allegation of lack of notice is not justified. In rejoinder, Ms. Nandita Haldipur submits that lack of opportunity is because of the failure to inform the date on which the appeal was taken up by the Tribunal on advancement. 5. Be these submissions as they are, the petitioner, as it emerges from the submissions now made, does not intend to pursue the appeal with the Tribunal because it has answered the demand. As - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16739 WP No. 23164 of 2024 such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to both the petitioner and the respondent to place on record a certified copy of this order with the Tribunal for closure of the pending appeal. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB