IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15462 of 2022 ================================================================ THEIS PRECISION STEEL INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II ================================================================ Appearance: MR AK CLERK(235) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 30/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner – Company under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Employees Provident fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) against the orders dated 08.07.2022 passed under Section 14B of the Act and under Section 7Q of the Act. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Clerk has submitted that the Delhi High Court rendered the decision in case of M/s. Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (North) referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Arcot Textiles Mills Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors., reported in [2014] AIR SC 295 that under the provisions of Section 7Q read with Section 14B of the Act challenging the order of computing interest under Section 7Q and levying damages under Section 14B, both can be challenged by way of preferring an appeal before the Appellate p. 2 Authority and accordingly, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal, which is pending adjudication but, since the Appellate Authority is not available, therefore, the appeal is not yet heard on merits. Learned counsel Mr. Clerk has therefore, urged that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the Authority that the appeal be heard on merits after giving proper opportunity to all the concerned parties and after considering their contentions available in the eye of law to be raised before the Authority and the interim relief granted by this Court be continued, till the application for interim relief is decided by the Authority. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of M/s. Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre (Supra) referred and relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Clerk. The relevant observations made in paras-2, 28 and 29 read as under : “2. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 5 th April, 2021 by which an order under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, 'EPF Act') computing interest amount of Rs. 27,39,507/- is under challenge. 28. Considering the fact that the initial imposition of interest under Section 7Q was contained in the order passed under Section 7A and thereafter, in a common order which was passed on 9th February, 2021 holding the Establishment liable even under Section 14B, the mere fact that the computation was made in two separate orders would not render the orders independent. The Tribunal is already seized of the appeal qua the damages imposed under Section 14B. A common notice having been issued, a common inquiry having been conducted, proceedings having been held in a common manner and a common order dated 9th February, 2021 having been passed, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to challenge the order under Section 7Q before the Tribunal rather than by way of a writ petition before this Court. The order dated 9th February 2021 along with the computation orders dated 5th April, 2021 and 8th April, 2021 are ‘composite orders' in terms of the binding precedent in Arcot Textiles Mills (supra). Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to either file a fresh p. 3 appeal or to amend the existing appeal to add a challenge to the interest imposed under Section 7Q, which shall be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law. 29. Parties to appear before the CGIT on 20th September, 2021. The CGIT shall consider any prayer for interim relief in respect of the Section 7Q demand, on the said date. Until then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner in respect of the interest amount imposed under Section 7Q of the EPF Act.” 4. In view of above, the Appellate Authority is hereby directed to decide the appeal on merits, after affording ample opportunity to all the concerned parties and after considering their contentions, in accordance with law. The interim relief, granted by this Court, shall continue to operate till the application for interim relief is decided by the Authority. 5. The present petition is disposed of, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly