Bombay High Court
WP/6562/2026 of RAMTEK MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER Vs ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NAGPUR on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
19.WP6562.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6562 OF 2026
Ramtek Municipal Council, Represented By Its Chief Officer
VERSUS
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Nagpur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Shraddhanand Bhutada, Advocate for the Petitioner(s).
Mr. Rajat K. Maheshwari, Advocate for the Respondent(s).
CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE
, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 07, 2026.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Shraddhanand Bhutada, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajat K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present petition challenges order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, passed on 11.06.2026, whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Section 7-O of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
3. It is the primary contention of Mr. Shraddhanand Bhutada that there was an earlier round of litigation between the parties and this Court, vide its order dated 30.01.2025 in Writ Petition No. 2328 of 2024, in paragraph 3, observed as under: “3. Therefore, the present petition does not survive. However, there will be no prejudice if the same arrangement is continued during the pendency of the appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, as respondents were heard while passing this order. As such, we direct the Tribunal to continue the interim arrangements during the pendency of appeal.” Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:13404
19. WP6562.2026
4. It is therefore his contention that the Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Section 7-O, which mandates that 75% of the amount due should be deposited with the authority. He, however, points me out that there is a power in the Tribunal to waive the entire amount, as can be seen from the proviso to Section 7-O. He therefore submits that he would withdraw the petition if liberty is granted to file an application under the provisions of Section 7-O seeking waiver of the statutory deposit.
5. Looking to the factual aspect of the matter, permission is granted to the petitioner to file an application under the provisions of Section 7-O of the Act.
6. However, it is made clear that the order dated 11.06.2026 would not come in the way of the Tribunal while deciding the said application and the Tribunal would decide the same in accordance with law and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Shubham