ANSAR STORES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order EPFA No.72 of 2025, dtd. 28/10/2025, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, confirming the order passed by the 1st respondent dtd. 14/2/2023 and consequential notice dtd. 28/6/2023, and the 3rd respondent's order dtd. 14/11/2024 and consequential proceedings dtd. 28/1/2025, and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner is running a store by name Ansar Stores, since the year 2013. The petitioner states that the petitioner suffered severe losses in the business which resulted in initiation of proceedings under Sec. 14, of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against it. With continued financial distress during covid pandemic, the petitioner closed its business. The petitioner states that it had a practice of allotting shelves to various marketing agencies, whose own staff operated from the premises. While so during March 2014, inspection was conducted by the EPF officials in the absence of the petitioner. The officials in the inspection erroneously treated the employees of the agencies as the petitioner's staff, recorded an inflated workforce, and without any documentary or factual basis, suomoto allotted a PF Code, on an assumption that the petitioner employed more than 20 employees. The petitioner states that no notice was given to the petitioner while bringing the petitioner under EPF coverage. After nearly 5 years, on 24/10/2019, the 1st respondent issued summons for an enquiry, but the petitioner due to ill health and family issues did not attend the same. Therefore, on 14/2/2023, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order under Sec. 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and demanded a sum of Rs.48,22,128.00 towards EPF dues. Based on the 7A order, attachment proceedings were initiated and therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition in WP No.25612 of 2014, which was disposed of with a direction to submit a representation. The petitioner submitted a representation on 22/10/2024, but the same was not responded to by the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed another writ petition in WP No.37911 of 2024, and the same was also disposed of with a similar direction to consider the representation. Thereafter, the recovery officer passed an order on 28/10/2025. The petitioner under the circumstances was constrained to file appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, challenging the 7-A order and also the consequential recovery order. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by a non speaking order and imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000.00. The petitioner, hence, left with no other remedy, filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the presiding officer, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai was a cryptic and non-speaking order and therefore it deserved to be set aside.