Karnataka High Court
Mr. B S Rajashekar vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 3 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12863
WP No. 23314 of 2022
HC-KAR
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)
Digitally
signed by AND:
PAVITHRA B
Location: 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
HIGH EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
COURT OF REGIONAL OFFICE,
KARNATAKA
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
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12863
WP No. 23314 of 2022
HC-KAR
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- NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 HC-KAR 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- NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 HC-KAR 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-
NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 HC-KAR 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-
NC: 2026:KHC:12863 WP No. 23314 of 2022 HC-KAR
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