S S HYUNDAI Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed alleging that despite the judgment of this Court dtd. 16/12/2025 in W.P(C) No.46595 of 2025 suspending the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner, certain amounts were recovered from the petitioner by proceeding against the bank account of the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Department would submit that the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.46595 of 2025 is dtd. 16/12/2025. It is submitted that the demand draft issued by the State Bank of India is dtd. 15/12/2025 and such demand draft was accepted and processed without being aware of the judgment of Court in W.P(C)No.46595 of 2025.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is put to serious prejudice, injury and hardship as the petitioner is not in a position to challenge the order issued under Sec. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short 'the 1952 Act'), out of which the demand arises, before the Appellate Authority, which is the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam as there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal for the past nearly 4 years. In other proceedings before this Court, I was informed by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that a Presiding Officer had been appointed to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam and that the Officer appointed was expected to take charge shortly. This submission was made in the month of December 2025 and a copy of the order appointing a Presiding Officer was also placed before me. However, when this matter was taken up, I had enquired with the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India as to whether the Officer had taken charge, it was informed that the Officer, who was appointed had expressed inability to take charge. As a result of which, the Government is now forced to conduct a fresh selection process. From the submission of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, it is clear that further time will be needed to make appointment to the post of Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. In the meanwhile, as noticed above, the amount payable by the petitioner in terms of the proceedings concluded under Sec. 7A of the 1952 Act have been recovered from the Bank account of the petitioner.