2025:JHHC:22165 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (L). No. 7642 of 2023 ------- M/s. Aawami Daily Newspaper, having its office at Sanmarg Building, Harmu Bypass Road, Near Kishoreganj Chowk, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District Ranchi, Jharkhand through its Finance Manager, Goutam Choudhury, son of Subodh Kumar, resident of 47, Burdwan Compound, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Central Board of Trustees, having its Seat at Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Barakhambha Road, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi. 2. Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, through the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Barakhambha Road, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi. 3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Compliance), Ranchi, Regional Office at Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Hinoo, District Ranchi, PIN-834002, Jharkhand. 4. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch, Ranchi, P.S. Argora, P.O. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN-834002 (Jharkhand). ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-EPFO : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate ---- 06/ 06.08.2025 The Instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/rule/direction or order staying the implementation and effect of order dated 30.09.2022 [Annexure-3] under Section 7B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as 'EPF & MP Act, 1952' for short] assessing on assumptions and without material, the confiscatory and exorbitant sum of Rs. 29,94,167/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakhs Ninety-Four Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Seven Only) for the period October, 2016 to March, 2018 till disposal of and decision on the stay application and the waiver application pending before the Appellate Authority under Section 71 of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 in IT. No. 2/27/2023. (ii) For issuance of appropriate direction or order for stay of the order of attachment of the bank account contained in letter bearing no. JH/ RO/ RNC/ CC/ JHRAN1530638000/ 2025:JHHC:22165 2 2022/1090-A/28816 dated 16.12.2022 [Annexure-4] issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, (Compliance) to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India for attachment and recovery of the sum of Rs. 29,94,167/- till disposal of the Petitioner's pending applications by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 in IT No. 2/27/2023. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non-availability of Presiding Officer at Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. He further submits that a heavy demand has been imposed upon the petitioner and some portions have already been recovered. He further submits that recently vide letter No. LCT No. 31/2025/81 dated 14.07.2025, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneshwar, has assumed the additional charge of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. Accordingly, necessary direction may be issued to the Incharge Presiding Officer either to dispose of the entire case on merit or atleast consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents do not have any objection and support the contention that Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, who is the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneshwar has been given the charge of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. 4. Having regard to the fair submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the instant application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a stay application, if the same has not been filed till date and thereafter, the learned Tribunal is requested either to dispose of the case on merit or consider the stay application during the pendency of the main case and pass an appropriate order preferably within a period of 12 weeks. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal