Priyanka 14-WP-1393-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1393 OF 2026 Talk of The Town ...Petitioner V/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I ...Respondent ________________ Ms. Samiksha R. Kanani for the Petitioner. Ms. Tanvi Purecha (through V.C.) for the Respondent. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 28 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petitioner challenges the order dated 3 January 2024 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, rejecting the Review Application preferred by the Petitioner under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). 2) I have heard Ms. Kanani, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Purecha, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent-EPFO. 3) It appears that the Petitioner was served with Notice under Section 7A of the EPF Act. The proceedings under Section 7A remained pending for 4 years and was adjourned on over 72 occasions. During the Page No. 1 of 4 28 August 2026 PRIYANKA MADHAVRAO KALE Digitally signed by PRIYANKA MADHAVRAO KALE Date: 2026.09.01 10:50:19 +0530 Priyanka 14-WP-1393-2026.docx said period, Petitioner did not produce a single document in the enquiry under Section 7A. After the final order was passed under Section 7A on 29 June 2023, the same was initially dispatched by RPAD, but the premises of the Petitioner were found locked. Therefore, the order was pasted on the premises of the Petitioner. Finally, on 7 December 2020, the Director of the Petitioner Shri. Swapnil Hegde personally approached the office and collected the order. Thereafter, what was done by the Petitioner was to merely address a two page letter dated 25 December 2023 branding the same as Review Application under Section 7B of the EPF Act. 4) One of the reasons for which the Review Petition is rejected is that the same was not filed in Form-9 of para 79A of the EPF Scheme. However, the order dated 3 January 2024 also records detail reasons for rejection of the Review Petition and the RPFC has not rejected the same only on the ground that the same was not in the Form. 5) Perusal of Form-9 of the EPF Scheme would indicate that, there is requirement under column 6 to state main grounds on which Application for review is made. Under Section 7B of the EPF Act, a review can be filed only upon discovery of new or important matters or evidence, which was not in the knowledge of the establishment or where there is any mistake or error apparent on face of record in the order sought to be reviewed. Therefore, it is necessary that in every Review Application either, of the two grounds are specifically pleaded for seeking review of order passed under Section 7A. In the present case, perusal of letter dated 25 December 2023 would indicate that, Petitioner Page No. 2 of 4 28 August 2026 Priyanka 14-WP-1393-2026.docx did not make out either of the two grounds for seeking review. Petitioner merely stated that, the Director was suffering from ill-health and could not participate in the proceeding. Willingness was shown to produce all necessary registers and documents for the period of investigation. However, along with the Review Petition not even a single document was produced. 6) Form-9 to para 79A is not an empty formality and it is incumbent on Review Applicant to state the grounds on which review of the order is sought. Even if one ignores the form of the letter dated 25 December 2023 and concentrates on its contents, it is difficult to hold that any ground for review was pleaded by the Petitioner. 7) Ms. Kanani, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has submitted that, the Review Petition has been rejected without even grant of an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. She has relied on first proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 7B in support of her contention that review cannot be decided without grant of opportunity of hearing. She has relied on Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5377 of 2023 dated 4 July 2023 in the case of J.M. Engineering vs. Union of India & Ors and Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 2022 (1) Mh.L.J. 259 in support of her contention that, it is impermissible to reject review without grant of opportunity of hearing. In the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to set aside the impugned order since Petitioner did not make out any case for review in the letter dated 25 December 2023. Merely addressing a letter branding the same as review without making Page No. 3 of 4 28 August 2026 Priyanka 14-WP-1393-2026.docx out a single ground of review does not mean that the authorities have to spend time in granting opportunity of hearing to the party seeking review. Therefore remanding the proceedings for re-hearing of the review would be an empty formality. 8) In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner did not avail opportunities of appearing before the R.P.F.C. during 4 long years when Section 7A enquiry was underway. He wrote a simple letter without pointing out any error apparent on face of record in the order under review. Now, it is orally sought to be contended by Ms. Kanani that no opportunity was given to the establishment. However, this point was not pleaded in the letter dated 25 December 2023. 9) Considering the above position, in my view, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 10) The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 11) The amount deposited in this Court by the Petitioner in pursuance of order dated 26 August 2025 is permitted to be withdrawn by Respondent-EPFO along with accrued interest. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 28 August 2026