CWP-22046 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (244) Central Board of Trustees and another Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal and another CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated (Annexure P 16.11.2001, was set aside and a specific direction was passed upon the respondent- damages in the manner stated in the impugned order 2. 22.09.2016 ‘Roma Hen EPF Organisation through Assistant PF Commissioner Delhi (North)’ passed by the Delhi High Court. now set aside the judgment (supra) in SLP (C) No.19610 o 22046-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Central Board of Trustees and another Versus Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Puran Singh Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226 the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated (Annexure P-6), passed by the respondent No.1 , was set aside and a specific direction was passed upon the Regional Provident Fund Assessing Authority, to assess the damages in the manner stated in the impugned order Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated (Annexure P-6), was passed upon the ratio laid down in case titled ‘Roma Henny Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Board of Trustees, Organisation through Assistant PF Commissioner Delhi (North)’ passed by the Delhi High Court. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has now set aside the judgment (supra) in SLP (C) No.19610 o 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22046-2017 Date of Decision : 04.09.2025 …Petitioners Employees Provident Fund ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Sanjay Tangri, Advocate and , Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal Advocate Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226/227 the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 22.09.2016 respondent No.1, wherethrough, the order dated , was set aside and a specific direction was passed upon the Assessing Authority, to assess the damages in the manner stated in the impugned order Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated , was passed upon the ratio laid down in case titled Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Board of Trustees, Organisation through Assistant PF Commissioner Delhi (North)’ However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has now set aside the judgment (supra) in SLP (C) No.19610 of 2017. Therefore, /227 of 22.09.2016 , wherethrough, the order dated , was set aside and a specific direction was passed upon the Assessing Authority, to assess the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated , was passed upon the ratio laid down in case titled Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Board of Trustees, Organisation through Assistant PF Commissioner Delhi (North)’ However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has Therefore, MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.06 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-22046 the issue, in hand, is require Government Industrial Tribunal 3. while relying upon the ratio laid down in Ltd. (supra) calculation of damages to continue, which i under Section 7Q of the Provision Act, 1952 26.09.2008 onwards, the damages and instant case, the entire period of assessment pertains before 26.09.2008 therefore, the direction respondent shall assess the dues on the basis of earlier table, which includes the element of inte found to be incorrect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19610 of 2017, titled Services Pvt. Ltd.’ re-consideration. 4. No.2, fairly submits that there is no dispute with regard to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the issue which is involved in the instant writ petition, requires 5. (Annexure P Central Government Industrial Tribunal decide the appeal, 22046-2017 the issue, in hand, is requires to be re-considered by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Appellate Court, Chandigarh. This Court has examined the impugned order, which was passed while relying upon the ratio laid down in Roma Hen . (supra), and it was held that uptill 26.09.2008, the earlier table for calculation of damages to continue, which i under Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) 26.09.2008 onwards, the damages and the instant case, the entire period of assessment pertains before 26.09.2008 therefore, the direction was passed by the learned Tribunal concerned, respondent shall assess the dues on the basis of earlier table, which includes element of interest under Section 7Q of the Act. Now found to be incorrect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19610 of 2017, titled ‘Central Board of Trustees versus Roma Henny Services Pvt. Ltd.’, and therefore, th consideration. Mr. Hundal, Advocate, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2, fairly submits that there is no dispute with regard to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the issue which is involved in the instant writ petition, requires In view of the above, the impugned order dated (Annexure P-6), is set aside, and the matter is Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum decide the appeal, afresh. 2 considered by the learned Central Appellate Court, Chandigarh. This Court has examined the impugned order, which was passed Roma Henny Security Services Pvt. and it was held that uptill 26.09.2008, the earlier table for calculation of damages to continue, which includes the element of interest Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’), and from the interest are segregated. In the instant case, the entire period of assessment pertains before 26.09.2008 was passed by the learned Tribunal concerned, that respondent shall assess the dues on the basis of earlier table, which includes rest under Section 7Q of the Act. Now, this observation was found to be incorrect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19610 of ‘Central Board of Trustees versus Roma Henny Securities , and therefore, the impugned order requires Mr. Hundal, Advocate, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2, fairly submits that there is no dispute with regard to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the issue which is involved in the instant writ petition, requires fresh consideration. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.09.2016 , and the matter is remanded back to the learned cum-Appellate Court, Chandigarh, to considered by the learned Central This Court has examined the impugned order, which was passed y Security Services Pvt. and it was held that uptill 26.09.2008, the earlier table for the element of interest Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous , and from In the instant case, the entire period of assessment pertains before 26.09.2008, that respondent shall assess the dues on the basis of earlier table, which includes , this observation was found to be incorrect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19610 of Securities r requires Mr. Hundal, Advocate, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2, fairly submits that there is no dispute with regard to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the issue which is 22.09.2016 learned , to MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.06 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-22046 6. therefore, this Court, also pass a Tribunal concerned, to decide the appeal most expeditiously, preferably within a period of six month The parties shall cause appearance before the learned concerned, o 7. September 04 Manpreet 22046-2017 Since the initial appeal was instituted way back in the year 2002, therefore, this Court, also pass a mandamus Tribunal concerned, to decide the appeal most expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties shall cause appearance before the learned on 18.09.2025. Consequently, the instant writ petitio September 04, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 3 initial appeal was instituted way back in the year 2002, mandamus upon the learned Appellate Tribunal concerned, to decide the appeal most expeditiously, preferably within , from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties shall cause appearance before the learned Appellate Tribunal Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No initial appeal was instituted way back in the year 2002, learned Appellate Tribunal concerned, to decide the appeal most expeditiously, preferably within , from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Tribunal MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.06 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment