Bombay High Court
Quick Heal Technologies Ltd Solitaire ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
P2.WPST.26318.2025.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.26318 OF 2025
Quick Heal Technologies Limited .. Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I
Employees' Provident Fund Organization .. Respondent
....................
Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, Advocate i/by Mr. Aumkar Joshi for Petitioner.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 13, 2025
P.C.:
1. Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board.
2. Perused the praecipe dated 13.08.2025 and copy of Writ Petition.
3. Heard Mr. Nargolkar, learned Advocate for Petitioner.
4. The present Writ Petition is filed on 25.07.2025 being aggrieved with the impugned action of Respondent of having taken the entire amount assessed under the order passed under Section 7A read with Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the said Act'). The Bank Account of Petitioners came to be attached on or about 01.04.2025 leading to the impugned action.
5. Mr. Nargolkar would submit that statutory Appeal was already filed prior thereto before Central Government Industrial 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:52:40 ::: P2.WPST.26318.2025.doc Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Mumbai (for short 'CGIT - 2') and an interim order was also passed on 28.03.2025 just two days prior to the impugned action.
6. By virtue of the impugned action, a direction was given to Petitioner to deposit 30% of the total assessed amount. But before Petitioner could fructify the said order in view of the impending holidays, on 01.04.2025 the Respondent arbitrarily without notice and without adherance to the order passed by CGIT - 2 directed the Bank of Petitioner to transfer the entire assessed amount of approximately Rs.5,00,68,000/- for Petitioner's Bank Account to the detriment of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, Petitioner immediately approached the CGIT - 2 with Application which was also heard but before it could be determined the office of CGIT -2 felt vacant. Having no recourse, Petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.
7. Apart from the aforesaid facts even on merits, Mr. Nargolkar would submit that assessment of liability is for a period of five years between the years 2014 to 2019 in respect of atleast 91 employees of the Company who were not even employed in the service of the Company and in that view of the matter challenge was maintained before the Appellate Authority to the impugned order of assessment under Section 7A and Section 7Q of the said Act.
8. Mr. Nargolkar would submit that page No.239 of the Writ 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:52:40 ::: P2.WPST.26318.2025.doc Petition is the order passed by CGIT -2 directing 30% of deposit and it is seen from the said order that Respondent was not represented before CGIT - 2. However Petitioners have addressed email on the same date to Respondent which is appended at page No.240 alongwith order passed by CGIT - 2.
9. Mr. Nargolkar would submit that 30.03.2025 and 31.03.2025 being holidays 01.04.2025 Petitioners duly followed the directions contained in the order passed by CGIT -2 on 28.03.2025 and deposited the Demand Draft of Rs.1,50,20,700/- which was also accepted by Respondent but it is only thereafter the Petitioners realised that the entire assessed amount of Rs.5,00,68,995/- was already transferred to the Respondent on the very same date in the morning.
10. The above strong facts backed by cogent evidence have been shown to me by Mr. Nargolkar. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondent.
11. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's notice, Petitioner is directed to serve the Respondent a copy of this order and copy of Writ Petition and inform about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof.
12. Respondents shall apprise the Court as to why it took the impugned action of transfer of the entire amount despite being 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:52:40 ::: P2.WPST.26318.2025.doc informed about passing of the order by CGIT - 2 by Petitioner. If required, appropriate Affidavit be filed.
13. If this Court finds Respondent has acted highhandedly and arbitrarily it will not hesitate in directing the Respondent to bring back the amount which has been taken away from the Bank account of Petitioner.
14. Let the Affidavit-in-reply be filed by Respondent within a period of one week from today. Copy of this order and Petition shall be served on Respondent. Respondent is directed to depute a responsible pleader to appear in this Court on the next adjourned date.
15. If it is found that Respondent has been served and if no pleader appears on the next adjourned date, this Court shall hear the Petition on its own merits and pass appropriate orders which may be noted by Respondent.
16. Affidavit-of-service shall be filed by Advocate for Petitioner.
17. Stand over to 20th August, 2025.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Digitally signed by HARSHADA HARSHADA HANUMANT HANUMANT SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2025.08.13 15:25:15 +0530 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:52:40 :::