Megha 44_wp_3755_2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3755 OF 2025 M/s. Shivtara Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Employees Provident Fund Organisation through Enforcement Officer and Anr. ...Respondents ________________ Adv. Zia Rahman with Ms. Bhakti Bangar i/b. M/s. Manoj Harit & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Bhupen Garud i/b. Ms. Divya Tyagi for the Respondents. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 24 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) Petition challenges order dated 18 February 2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2, Mumbai (CGIT-2), allowing the application for stay subject to condition of the Petitioners depositing 35% of the assessed amount. Perusal of the order dated 27 August 2024 passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the EPF Act) would indicate that a specific statement is made that the establishment is covered from 1 July 2016. This is further reiterated in paragraph 8, in Page No. 1 of 3 24 September 2026 Megha 44_wp_3755_2025 which it is stated that the establishment falls under CAT-A of defaulter list and as per the defaulter list (CAT-A) dated 5 July 2018 the establishment failed to remit dues from October-2017 onwards. However, prima facie it appears that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) erroneously applied the scheme and has fixed the liability from April 2013 by holding as under:- The establishment has not submitted salary sheets from the date of set up to confirm the date of applicability. The establishment has produced only the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account from the year 2011- 12 to 2018-19. On verification of the same, Departmental Representative observed that relevant entries are shown as "NIL" in the Profit and Loss account for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 however, in the Profit and Loss account from 2013-14 onwards, mention of two projects namely "Athena Projects" and "Ashirwad Projects" are found in the Balance sheet and Profit and Loss Account and it has booked huge amount under the head Salary A/C. Labour charges and Security charges for these projects. Considering the minimum wages of that time, there is a possibility that the establishment has crossed the limit of 19 employees in the month of April, 2013. Whereas in the absence of records, the exact date of applicability of EPF and MP Act of the establishment cannot be ascertained. 2) Thus, though there was no concrete evidence of date of applicability of EPF Act to the establishment, RPFC prima facie appears to have done a mere guess work by ascertaining the dues from April 2013. If the dues were to be ascertained from 1 July 2016 the same would be roughly to the tune of Rs.1.77 crores as ascertained under Section 7A order. By order dated 13 March 2025 this Court has already directed the Petitioners to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- of the assessed amount. Said amount is apparently deposited by the Petitioners. 3) In view of the above position, interim stay granted by this Court on 13 March 2025 needs to be continued during pendency of the appeal before the CGIT-2. Page No. 2 of 3 24 September 2026 Megha 44_wp_3755_2025 4) Petition is accordingly disposed of by modifying order dated 18 February 2025 passed by the CGIT-2 and directing that the stay granted by the Tribunal shall continue to operate during pendency of the appeal on account of deposit of amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Petitioners. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 24 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 15:12:53