10.09.2026 Item No.04 Ct. No.11 MKP CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE MAT 88/2026 With IA No: CAN 2 OF 2026 Regional PF Commissioner I, Employees PF Organization, Regional Office, Jalpaiguri Vs. Western Conglomerate Limited. Mr. Bhaskar Roy Maharaja. ... For the Appellant. Mr. Nabankar Paul, Mr. Satyaki Basu, Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh. .....For the Respondent no.1 1. This appeal is against an order dated 10th June, 2025 whereby, a blanket order of “no coercive steps” has been passed in favour of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner establishment. 2. Briefly, the writ petitioner is the owner of a tea estate. In view of non-payment of provident fund dues, proceedings had been initiated by the appellant under sections 7A,7B,7C,14B and 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (the Act). 2 3. It is pertinent to mention that the proceeding has been initiated as far back as early 2023, when the summons were first served on the respondent no.1 establishment. The grievance of the establishment was directed against the Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the appellant for an amount of approximate Rs.6.5 crores. 4. At this stage, the petitioner had approached the Court primarily on the ground that there was delay in hearing of the statutory appeal before the Presiding Officer. By the impugned order, a blanket order of stay had been granted in favour of the respondent establishment. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that such a blanket order of stay without making any deposit by the establishment emasculates the object of the Act. The provision for an appeal contemplates a deposit of at least 75% which establishment has circumvented by filing the instant writ petition. Despite an offer from Court, the establishment rejected the offer to make any deposit. 3 6. In such circumstances, the grievance of the establishment that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, does not regularly function cannot continue ad infinitum. There must be a limit to the enjoyment of a blanket prohibition against any coercive steps. The fact of the matter is that the Tribunal is functional and operational. 7. It is important to remember that the Act is a social welfare legislation. 8. The impugned order was passed as far back as on 10th June, 2025 and there is nothing to demonstrate that the establishment has taken any steps for hearing of the proceeding before the Tribunal. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10th June, 2025 is set aside. 10. Liberty is granted to the establishment to take necessary steps before the Tribunal in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that there has been no adjudication in the merits of the case and Tribunal is to decide the application of the establishment strictly in accordance with law. 4 12. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal is directed to take expeditious steps in hearing the appeal at least the application for stay filed by the petitioner, preferably within a period of 14 days from the date of passing of this order. In the meantime and only to the limited extent, i.e.14 days the appellant shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 13. The instant appeal being MAT no. 88 of 2026 is disposed of. The connected application being CAN 2 of 2026 is also disposed of. 14. Urgent certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties if applied upon completion of all required formalities. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)