Renuka 11-WP-11240-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11240 OF 2026 Kulgaon Badlapur Nagar Parishad ...Petitioner V/s. Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Anr ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Narayan R. Bubna a/w Mr. Aryanraj A. for Petitioner. Mr. Gunjan Chaubey a/w Mr. Sandeep Singh for Respondent-EPFO. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 1 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petition is filed by Kulgaon Badlapur Nagar Parishad challenging the order dated 30 June 2026 passed under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(EPF Act). The Impugned order rejects Review Petition filed by the Petitioner- Municipal Corporation against Section 7-A order dated 29 October 2020. This is a second round of litigation qua Section 7B order. Earlier the review was apparently rejected without grant of an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. By order dated 22 February 2022, this Court set aside the order and directed grant of opportunity to the Petitioner of hearing in the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Review was heard for a prolonged period of four years and numerous dates of hearing were fixed. Page No. 1 of 6 1 SEPTEMBER2026 2026:BHC-AS:36204 Renuka 11-WP-11240-2026.docx The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has passed 81 page detailed order rejecting the Review Petition dealing with each and every contention sought to be raised by the Petitioner. 2) There is a remedy of filing Appeal against the order under Section 7B of the EPF Act. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 7B, an Appeal lies under the EPFAct against the order passed under review as if the order passed under the review were the original order passed under Section 7A. Petitioner thus has alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing review before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). 3) Mr. Bubna, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may not be relegated to the alternate remedy of filing of Appeal in view of the special circumstances in the present case where the RPFC has not issued notices to the individual contractors for ascertaining the details of employees. He has relied on judgments of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India V/s Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. 1 and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd V/s Employees State Insurance Corporation2 as well as of this Court in M/s. Altaf Ahamad, Anjuman Shops Complex Bajar, Sadar, Nagpur V/s The Assistant Provident fund Commissioner and Anr.3 and Matheran Municipal Council V/s Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner4 Relying on the above judgments, it is sought to be contended by Mr. Bubna that 1 (1990) 1 SCC 2 (2008) 3 SCC 247 3 Writ Petition No. 1335 of 2011 decided on 29 January 2026. 4 Writ Petition No. 15200 of 2023 decided on 27 February 2024 Page No. 2 of 6 1 SEPTEMBER2026 Renuka 11-WP-11240-2026.docx Section 7A inquiry must be conducted after undertaking investigation by summoning the contractors to ascertain the details of payments of PF contribution paid by them through PF code numbers. 4) In the present case, the RPFC has analyzed the provisions of Section 21A of the Contract Labour (Regulation of Abolition Act 1970), (CLRA) paragraph 30 and 36B of the EPFC and has concluded as under;- For the sake of brevity, relative section of the CLRA Act is reproduced herein below: 21. Responsibility for payment of wages.- (1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed. (2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorised representative of the principal employer. (4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor any contract as a debt payable by the contractor. Similarly, Para 30 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 makes it explicit that the Principle Employer is liable to secure PF compliance in respect of eligible employees employed by him directly or by or through a contractor. For the sake of brevity, Para 30 is reproduced herein below: Para 30 of the EPF Scheme - Payment of contributions: Page No. 3 of 6 1 SEPTEMBER2026 Renuka 11-WP-11240-2026.docx "(1) The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution) and also, on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such member (in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution). (2) In respect of employees employed by or through a contractor, the contractor shall recover the contribution payable by such employee (in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution) and shall pay to the principal employer the amount of member's contribution so deducted together with an equal amount of contribution (in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution) and also administrative charges. (3) It shall be the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges." The Municipal Council has questioned the names of contractors and employees for whom the dues were assessed under Section 7A. The basis of computation has already been detailed in the Section 7A order and further explained in the deposition report dated 03/09/2025 submitted by the Enforcement Officer. Further, Para 36-B of the EPF Scheme, 1952 empowers the Principle Employer to obtain all relevant information from the contractors. For the sake of brevity, the Para 35-B is reproduced herein below: Para 36-B. Duties of Contractors: "Every contractor shall, within seven days of the close of every month, submit to the principal employer a statement showing the recoveries of contributions in respect of employees employed by or through him and shall also furnish to him such. Information as the principal employer is required to furnish under the provisions of the Scheme to the Commissioner." From the combined reading of the provisions of the CLRA Act, 1970 and the EPF & MP Act, 1952, it Is evident that:  The Principal Employer must maintain complete records of all workers engaged through contractors. Page No. 4 of 6 1 SEPTEMBER2026 Renuka 11-WP-11240-2026.docx  The Principal Employer must verify wage disbursement and ensure statutory payments.  The Principal Employer must secure PF compliance for all eligible employees engaged directly or through any contractor.  Contractors are legally bound to furnish monthly details to the Principal Employer, enabling the latter to comply with the EPF Scheme. Accordingly, Identification of employees and ensuring their PF compliance is the sole and statutory responsibility of the Municipal Council, being the Principal Employer. 5) Thus, after considering combined effect of the CLRA Act and the EPF Scheme, the RPFC has arrived at the conclusion that the sole and statutory responsibility of maintaining all details with regard to employees of the contractor rests on the Municipal Council. Whether this conclusion of the RPFC is correct or not can be decided by the Appellate Court. It appears that the RPFC has thought it unnecessary to summon the contractors in the facts of the present case and has put the entire responsibility of providing details of contract workers on the Petitioner. Whether this is right or not again can be considered only in an Appeal. 6) In my view, therefore this is not appropriate case for entertaining the present Petition by permitting the Petitioner to skirt the remedy of Appeal under Section 7-I of the EPF Act. 7) It appears that the position of the Presiding Officer at C.G.I.T-II is vacant. It is contended by Mr. Bubna that precipitative steps would be taken by the RPFC against the Municipal Council, if it is unable to press Application for stay before the Tribunal on account of non Page No. 5 of 6 1 SEPTEMBER2026 Renuka 11-WP-11240-2026.docx availability of the Presiding Officer. In my view a pro tem arrangement can be made by directing the Petitioner to deposit 25% of the ascertained amount with the EPF department. Subject to such deposit being made, an ad-interim protection can be granted in favour of the Petitioner- Municipal Council till the Tribunal considers and decides Application under Section 7-O for interim relief. 8) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file Appeal against order 7I of the EPF Act and application of stay. Till the Petitioner's Application for stay under Section 7-O is decided by the Tribunal, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of ascertained amount in the event Petitioner deposits 25% of the amount due and payable with the EPF department within a period of four weeks. 9) All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the Tribunal. Time spent in the prosecuting the Petition shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 6 of 6 1 SEPTEMBER2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 16:16:47