- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10777 WP No. 67040 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.67040 OF 2011 (L-PF) BETWEEN: THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S MAHANTESHWAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY BELLAD BAGEWADI (TAL.) HUKKERI, (DIST.) BELGAUM, (STATE) KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI. MAHADEV S/O. NINGAPPA ALAKANUR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.K.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS IS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 20TH MAY 2011 PASSED BY THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.ATA.844(6)2007 (ANNEXURE-D) AND DECLARE THAT THE EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 7-I OF THE ACT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO REMIT INEREST AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 7Q OF THE ACT AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10777 WP No. 67040 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present writ petition is filed calling in question the order dated 20.05.2011 passed in Appeal No.ATA.844(6)/2007 by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that, the petitioner – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II2 by proceedings dated 30.07.2007 initiated under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 19523 demanded payment of Rs.2,31,273/- being the damages and interest payable from the respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal in Appeal ATA.No.844(6)/2007. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 20.05.2011, remanded the matter to the Commissioner to assess the dues @ 37% (inclusive of interest). Being aggrieved, the Commissioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. The Sole contention put forth in the present writ petition is that, when the Appellate Tribunal has remanded the 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal” for short. 2 Hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner” for short. 3 Hereinafter referred to as “the P.F.Act - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10777 WP No. 67040 of 2011 matter, it ought not to have specified the rate on which dues were required to be assessed. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. M/s Jamiyystul Falah and another4. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent seeks to justify the impugned order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. However, he does not dispute the legal position as held by the Division Bench of this Court, which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner. 5. It is pertinent to note that, the Appellate Tribunal upon noticing that, the Commissioner has not followed the Circular dated 29.05.1990, remanded the matter. However, while remanding the matter, it has specified that the Commissioner is to assess the dues at 37% (inclusive of interest). The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) noticing a similar fact situation, wherein the Appellate Tribunal had restricted the damages at 15%, set aside the said direction. 4 Order dated 03.03.2011 passed in W.A.No.371/2010 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10777 WP No. 67040 of 2011 6. Having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra), it is just and proper that, the relief sought for in the present petition be granted. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 20.05.2011 passed in Appeal No.ATA.844(6)/2007 by the Appellate Tribunal to the extent that the petitioner authority has been directed to assess the dues at 37% (inclusive of interest), is set aside. However, the order of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal vide the order dated 20.05.2011, is affirmed. (iii) The respondent shall appear before the petitioner on 24.09.2025 without the requirement of any further notice in this regard. (iv) Consequent to the appearance of the respondent, the petitioner shall conduct all further proceedings in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10777 WP No. 67040 of 2011 (v) All contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter are kept open. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE EM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12