C/SCA/8046/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8046 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== M/S. STEEL STRONG VALVES (I) PVT. LTD. Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 03/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 read with the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 seeking following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Presiding Ocer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court/ EPF Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dated 17.04.2024 and 7A order dated 12.10.2023 in the interest of justice; (B) Pending admission, hearing and 3nal disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, p. 1 C/SCA/8046/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026 implementation and execution of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the respondent no 2 in 7A proceedings and also notice issued by the respondent No.3 dated 05.04.2024 as well as order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 12.10.2023 in the interest of justice; (C) Any other and further reliefs may be granted in favour of petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem 3t and proper under the circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner is a Company engaged in valve manufacturing. That, one Enforcement O,cer, Geetaben M. Nayar had visited the petitioner on 03.07.2019, 05.07.2019 and also on 12.07.2019 where she had found that seven employees, receiving Rs.6500/- (before 01.09.2014) and more than Rs.15000/- as basic wages from 01.09.2014 were wrongly excluded under the P.F. Act. Therefore, said O,cer had instructed the petitioner to deduct P.F. from these seven workers and send to her the corresponding challan with regard to the same. That, the said o,cer had observed in the salary registers of September, 18 and May, 19 that the petitioner had split basic wages into HRA, transport allowance, medical allowance, special allowance and other allowances to reduce P.F. liabilities. That, the petitioner had contract with Salamati Security and Personal Force Pvt. Ltd. for supplying guards, having their own separate P.F. No.50756 and therefore, said Enforcement O,cer had instructed petitioner to verify P.F. deductions for security guards from said Salamati Security and Personal Force Pvt. Ltd. along with checking P.F. Challans and ECR. That, the petitioner had also contract with Gunavantiben Gohel and Bharat Gohel housekeeping, and therefore, said o,cer had also instructed petitioner to deduct p. 2 C/SCA/8046/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026 P.F. from this contractor as well. That, during thorough examination, the said Enforcement O,cer had not made demand for any P.F. dues against the petitioner in her visit book. That, the petitioner therefore, had informed the said o,cer/authority about P.F. compliance and the coverage of all eligible employees, but they instructed remittance for 7 employees without providing their names. That, thereafter, inquiry proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act was initiated against the petitioner wherein respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.10.2023, directed the petitioner to pay lump sum of Rs.67,67,894.00 as P.F. dues without any calculation. That, consequently the petitioner led PF Appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad seeking prayer of setting aside the order dated 12.10.2023 passed under Section 7A of the Act. That, the petitioner has preferred Appeal (CGIT) No. 10 of 2024 before Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal-cum-CGIT, Ahmedabad which was led after a delay of 10 days over and above statutory period mentioned under the Act and therefore, Appeal was rejected. After rejection, immediately the respondent No.3 had issued notice dated 05.04.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.67,67,894 towards P.F. dues within 15 days from date of receipt. In view of this, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatised with the impugned orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and authority, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Page 3 of 7 C/SCA/8046/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026 Perused the material available on record. 5. Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and authority are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, are required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the CGIT has not considered the fact that the delay was not more than 10 days beyond statutory period mentioned under the Act which was not to be condoned. He has submitted that respondent No.2 had not provided the calculation while passing the order dated 12.10.2023 and had committed grave error in calculating the outstanding dues towards PF against the petitioner. He has submitted that the 7A order to pay contribution in respect of self- employed contractor and employees of the security contractor is illegal and contrary to settled legal position of the law, as the self-employed contractors raise bills and on that TDS gets deducted and thereafter the payments are made and hence, self- employed contractors cannot be termed as employee of the petitioner. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Pandya has urged that the impugned orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and authority are required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Pathik Acharya, appearing for the respondent, has opposed the present petition and submitted that there is no any inrmity or any illegality in p. 4 C/SCA/8046/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026 the impugned orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and authority and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. He has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and authority are in consonance with the settled principles of law and are passed after following due procedure and therefore, the same are required to be conrmed and the present petition is required to be dismissed and no interference is required to be called for while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Property Company (P) Ltd vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda reported in 2026 (0) INSC 33. 7. In the case of Rohinten Daddy Mazda(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue involved in the appeal, has held and observed that so far as the delay occurred in preferring the proceedings before the Tribunal, the statutory authority has no power to condone the delay except which is vested with the competent court. Considering the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 160, the present petition is to be heard by the appellate authority on merits. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned orders passed by the concerned Tribunals and authority. It appears that the petitioner had challenged a Section 7A order under the EPF Act following inspections in July 2019 by Enforcement O,cer Geetaben M. p. 5 C/SCA/8046/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026 Nayar. The o,cer alleged that seven employees were wrongly excluded from PF coverage and that the company had improperly split basic wages into various allowances to reduce its PF liabilities. Additionally, instructions were given to verify compliance regarding security and housekeeping contractors. Despite the petitioner’s claims of compliance, respondent No. 2 issued an order on 12.10.2023, demanding a lump sum of Rs. 67,67,894 without providing detailed calculations. The petitioner subsequently led an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Ahmedabad; however, while the appeal was pending, a recovery notice was issued on 05.04.2024. Ultimately, the appeal (First Appeal No. 10 of 2024) on 17.04.2024, due to a 10-day delay in ling, leading to the present petition. 9. After considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is hereby allowed. The delay occurred in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. The matter is remanded back to the concerned appellate authority. The appellate authority shall hear the matter after giving proper opportunity to all the concerned parties and the parties shall raise such contentions before the appellate authority, available under the law and the same shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. As the appeal is of 2024, it is expected that it shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. Till the interim application shall be preferred by the appellant before appellate authority for stay, no coercive action against the petitioner shall be initiated as the petitioner has already deposited 20% of demand amount before p. 6 C/SCA/8046/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026 the Provident Fund authority. Therefore, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner till the interim application be decided. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 7 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/02/2026 17:19:16