13. 10.07.2026 Court No.8 (Tanmoy) FMA/548/2013 (MAT/1746/2012) STAR SECURITY & DETECTIVE AGENCY & ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. WITH IA NO: CAN/1/2012(Old No:CAN/10264/2012), CAN/4/2013(Old No:CAN/12357/2013) Mr. Soumya Mazumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gour Baran Sau …for the appellants. Mr. Raj Kumar Gaurisaria Mr. Goutam Sardar …for UOI. Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee Mr. Suman Basu …for KMC. Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal and the connected applications are taken up together for hearing. 2. An order under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, was challenged by the present appellants before a learned Judge of this Court. The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by sending back the matter to Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) for adjudication of the issue as to who would bear the liability towards the provident fund dues of the contract labourers. 2 3. Mr. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, tells us that he has found that KMC passed an order pursuant to the learned Single Judge’s order, which is under challenge in this appeal. That order has been challenged by the present appellants by way of a writ petition being W.P. 23880(W) of 2012. It appears that another writ petition is also pending relating to the same matter, being W.P. 18309(W) of 2012. 4. Mr. Mazumder says that ideally he should not proceed with this appeal and pursue the two writ petitions pending before the learned Single Judge. However, there is a subsisting interim order in this appeal and in view thereof no prayer was made before the learned Single Judge for interim order. Therefore, a limited protection should be granted to the appellants enabling them to approach the learned Single Judge for interim order. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel representing KMC, in his usual fairness, has left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 6. We see logic in Mr. Mazumder’s submission. Since the fresh order passed by KMC is under 3 challenge in a writ petition, truly speaking, this appeal has become infructuous. 7. This appeal being FMA/548/2013 along with the connected applications being IA NO: CAN/1/2012(Old No: CAN/10264/2012), CAN/4/2013(Old No:CAN/12357/2013) stand disposed of. 8. However, it is understood that no effect will be given to the orders which are under challenge by the present appellants in the two writ petitions mentioned above, for a period of three weeks from date (31.07.2026). In the meantime, the appellants will be at liberty to approach the learned Single Judge for appropriate interim protection. 9. We clarify that we have not touched the merits of the case at all. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petitions pending before His Lordship independently and without being influenced by any observation in this order. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)