- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.23314 OF 2022 (L-PF) BETWEEN: MR. B.S.RAJASHEKAR S/O SANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S GEMINI SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES NO.648, 5TH CROSS, LENIN NAGAR, NITTUVALLI NEW EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU (KORAMANGALA) ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX SURVEY NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN SINGASANDRA, HOSURU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 068. 2. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED(BSNL) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJA BHAVAN ROAD Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. Y. HARIPRASAD ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2022 BEARING NO.KN/PF/RO(KOR)/7Q/ 1405788/ 2022.23/363 PASSED BY THE R1 UNDER SECTION 7Q OF THE ACT VIDE ANNEXRUE-P AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2022 BEARING NO.KN/PF/RO(KOR)/7Q/1405788/2022.23/363 PASSED UNDER SECTION 7Q ACT BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-P UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 04.11.2022 passed under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”). Admittedly, the order is passed on account of delayed payment of provident fund contribution by the petitioner. There is no - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 dispute over the fact that there is delay on the part of the petitioner to make the provident fund contribution. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the delay is not intentional and it is on account of unavoidable circumstances. He would refer to the COVID-19 pandemic situation and also the delayed payment by Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) - 2nd respondent, which delayed the payment to the petitioner, who provided services to the BSNL. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that, the delayed payment by 2nd respondent-BSNL is not a ground for the petitioner to claim exemption from payment of interest on the delayed payment in view of the language employed in Section 7Q of the Act of 1952. It is further submitted that, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 petitioner is required to make payment in time and if there is delay for whatever reason, there is no scope to claim exemption from liability to pay interest. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2- BSNL would submit that, the petitioner had undertaken to pay contribution of the fund under the Act of 1952 and there is no clause in the agreement, which makes the BSNL liable to pay interest in case of delayed payment to the fund by the petitioner. Thus, he would urge that, the petition may be dismissed. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 reads as under: “Section 7Q: Interest payable by the employer.—The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve percent 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: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 Provided that higher rate of interest specified in the Scheme shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank.” 8. From the language of Section 7Q of the Act of 1952, it is apparent that the liability to pay interest on the delayed payment is on the employer. Section 7Q of the Act of 1952, does not provide any exemption to the employer to make payment of interest on account of delayed payment, more particularly, in a situation where the person who is due to the employer delays the payment. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner is the employer. 9. Under the circumstances, the petitioner's contention that he is not liable to pay interest cannot be accepted. If the petitioner is to contend that the delayed payment is on account of default on the part of 2nd defendant to pay is due to the petitioner, the petitioner's remedy is to take appropriate action against 2nd respondent, if so advised in law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 10. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. 11. If any remedy available against 2nd respondent, it is for the petitioner to pursue the same as advised in law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PB List No.:1 Sl No.:7