1 2026:CGHC:16250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 58 of 2026  M/s SIR Corporation Through Its Proprietor Office At Plot No 117, T.P. Nagar, Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1. Employees Provident Fund Organization Through Its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, District- Office Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Recovery Officer EPFO, District- Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) Through Its Chief General Manager, Chhattisgarh Telecom Circle, Vidhan Sabha Road, Khamardih Raipur (C.G.) 4. Axis Bank Through Branch Manager Office At Near Hindustan Hosiery Power House Road Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh, 5. Indian Bank Through Branch Manager Office At Power House Road Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh, 6. The General Manager BSNL (Bilaspur Division) BSNL Office Campus Near Agrasen Chowk Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate along with Mr. Syed Mohd. Sohail Afzal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 6 : Mr. Nirala Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.04 .2026 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2025(Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Bilaspur under the provisions of Section 7Q of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short Act, 1952), whereby the Commissioner SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.10 14:12:17 +0530 2 determined dues and interest levied on account of purported delayed remittance of provident fund contributions. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 16.03.2026 and 26.03.02026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 8F of the Act, 1952 and the order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/7), passed under the provisions of Section 14B of the Act, 1952. 2. Ms. Ali would submit that on 04.09.2025 one Mr. Sumit Sinha appeared before Commissioner on behalf of establishment and requested for some more time to verify calculation sheet and matter was adjourned for 23.09.2025. On 23.09.2025, one Mr. Shams Tabrej Khan proprietor of establishment appeared and again sought time to verify calculation sheet and it was adjourned for 13.10.2025. On 13.10.2025 none appeared and the Commissioner passed final order. Ms. Ali would submit that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. She would submit that time was sought by the petitioner herein before the Commissioner to ascertain the entries made in the calculation sheet, but the Commissioner without affording sufficient opportunity, in absence of the petitioner, passed final order, which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without service of notice to the petitioner order dated 16.03.2026 and 26.03.2026 (Annexure P/2) was passed in contravention to the provisions of Section 8F of the Act of 1952. She would submit that Section 14B of the Act of 1952 can be exercised where the employer makes default in payment of any contribution 3 to the fund. She would contend that present is not a case where the petitioner committed default in payment of contribution rather there was some delay in its part, and therefore, the authority concerned exceeded its jurisdiction while passing order under this provision. She would pray to quash the order impugned. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is also contended that on 04.09.2025 and 23.09.2025 Mr. Sumit Sinha and Mr. Shams Tabrej Khan appeared on behalf of the establishment, but failed to appear on 13.10.2025, and therefore, the learned Commissioner passed order on merits on said date. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi would submit that the order dated 17.11.2025(Annexure P/7) is appealable according to the provisions of Section 7I of the Act of 1952. They would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of the order impugned would show that the petitioner corporation is covered under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was duty of establishment to deposit contribution in respect of all of its eligible employees engaged in or in connected with the work of establishment. On monthly basis, the petitioner failed to make payment of its contribution; therefore, a proceeding was initiated by the Commissioner. 6. Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 reads as under :- 4 “7Q. Interest payable by the employer.—The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the Scheme on any amount due from him under this Act from the date on which the amount has become so due till the date of its actual payment: Provided that higher rate of interest specified in the Scheme shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank.” 7. Summon was issued to the petitioner for his appearance and proceedings were held on 11.08.2025, 04.09.2025, 23.09.2025 and 13.10.2025. On 04.09.2025, Mr. Sumit Sinha appeared on behalf of the establishment and took adjournment. On 23.09.2025, again time was taken. On 13.10.2025, no- one appeared and the Commissioner passed final order. Thus it cannot be held that final order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing rather petitioner itself failed to appear. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere. 8. Section 8B of the Act, 1952 deals with Issue of certificate to the Recovery Officer and same is reproduced herein-below :- 8B. Issue of certificate to the Recovery Officer.—(1) Where any amount is in arrear under section 8, the authorised officer may issue, to the Recovery Officer, a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears and the Recovery Officer, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover the amount specified therein from the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer by one or more of the modes mentioned below:— (a) attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer; (b) arrest of the employer and his detention in 5 prison; (c) appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable properties of the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer: Provided that the attachment and sale of any property under this section shall first be effected against the proportion of the establishment and where such attachment and sale is insufficient for recovering the whole of the amount of arrears specified in the certificate, the Recovery Officer may take such proceedings against the property of the employer for recovery of the whole or any part of such arrears. (2) The authorised officer may issue a certificate under sub-section (1), notwithstanding that proceedings for recovery of the arrears by any other mode have been taken. 9. Bare reading of the provisions would make it clear that where any amount is in arrear under section 8, the authorised officer may issue, to the Recovery Officer, a certificate under his signature. In the present case, order under Section 7Q of the Act, 1952 was already passed by the Commissioner and in compliance of said order recovery proceedings were initiated. It is not a case where petitioner was not aware of the fact that order under Section 7Q of the Act, 1952 has already been passed against it, therefore, the contention made by Ms. Ali cannot be accepted. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and order has been passed on merits after taking into consideration relevant documents. Further, there is efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioner to assail the order passed under Section 14B of Act, 1952 according to the provisions of Section 7I of the Act, 1952. I do not inclined to interfere with the orders. Accordingly, this 6 petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant