Court No. 10 (1629) 22.07.2026 (JPDSL 1) (S. Banerjee) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side WPA 952 of 2026 Anjuman Tea Company Limited Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II & Ors. Mr. Soumya Majudar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashis Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Saurabh Prasad Ms. Sanjukta Dutta Ms. Subashree Hazra Ms. Keya Kundu … for the petitioner Mr. Bhaskar Roy Mahasaya … for the PF authority The order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated March 13, 2026 in EPF Appeal No. 22 of 2024 is under challenge at the instance of the establishment. By the said order the operation of the impugned order dated September 14, 2024 passed under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was stayed till the hearing of the appeal on condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the assessed sum in favour of the 2 respondent authorities within the time limit indicated in the said order. Mr. Majumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Harbal Res. Laboratory – Vs.- Assistant P. F. Commercial, reported at 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1543 in support of his contention that there is no requirement under the statute to deposit the amount awarded under Section 14B at the time of preferring an appeal or any percentage thereof. He thus submits that the learned Tribunal was not justified in directing the petitioner to deposit an amount as a condition for stay. Learned advocate appearing for the Employees Provident Fund authority submits that such issue was not raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal when the impugned order was passed. Taking note of the fact that July 31, 2026 has been fixed before the Tribunal, this Court feels that interest of justice would be sub-served if the Tribunal is 3 directed to revisit the order dated March 13, 2026. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the Tribunal to revisit the order dated March 13, 2026 after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Harbal Res. Laboratory (supra). This Court refrains from making any observation as to the applicability of the said decision at this stage and it would be open to the Tribunal to decide the issue strictly in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)