- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:335 WP No. 32625 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 32625 OF 2024 (L-PF) BETWEEN: M/S. SUNGEOMATICS ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 45/B, 3RD FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, OPP. MINI FOREST, J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE, SARAKKI INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560078 COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI DINESH K S. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH G A, ADVOCATE) AND: THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER- II, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU (KORAMANGALA) ANNAPURNESHWARI COMPLEX, SURVEY NO. 37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560068. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2024 IN EPF APPEAL NO 82/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN SO FAR AS DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT 75 PERCENT OF THE ASSESSED AMOUNT AS PER SECTION 7A ORDER DATED 28.06.2024, (ANNEXURE - A) AND WAIVE OFF THE PRECONDITION DEPOSIT UNDER SECTION 7-0, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:335 WP No. 32625 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court in EPF No.82/2024 mandating the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount determined under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act of 1952'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Authority has taken into account some of the persons who are not at all the employees of the petitioner- establishment. As such a huge liability of Rs.1,04,68,136/- is imposed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:335 WP No. 32625 of 2024 4. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to exercise the discretion of power under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952, despite the petitioner making a legitimate case for waiving the pre-deposit amount. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that both the authorities have concurrently held that the persons are the employees of petitioner- establishment and the petitioner is in arrears of the Provident Fund, as such, there cannot be any waiver or reduction in the pre-deposit amount. And it is also her submission that all the employees of petitioner are covered under the Act of 1952. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. No doubt the Statute mandates that there has to be 75% deposit before filing an appeal. However, the discretion is also on the Appellate Authority to waive or reduce the pre-deposit considering the circumstances. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:335 WP No. 32625 of 2024 8. On going through the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the interest of both the parties would be safeguarded in case the petitioner is directed to deposit 40% of the amount determined under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 within 4 weeks from today. 9. On such deposit, the Appellate Authority shall hear the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60