Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2500/2026 of M/S AKASH CONSTRUCTION Vs THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, on 14 May 2026
GAHC010083512026 2026:GAU-AS:6775 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2500/2026 M/S AKASH CONSTRUCTION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BLOCK NO.16, K.B. ROAD, ROWRIAH, P.O. -JORHAT, P.S. - JORHAT PIN-785005, DISTRICT - JORHAT, ASSAM
GAHC010083512026
2026:GAU-AS:6775
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2500/2026
M/S AKASH CONSTRUCTION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BLOCK NO.16, K.B. ROAD, ROWRIAH, P.O.
-JORHAT, P.S. - JORHAT PIN-785005, DISTRICT - JORHAT, ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DULY AUTHORIZED MANAGING PARTNER
MR. KAMAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SON OF LATE RATTAN KUMAR
JAIN R/O- ROWRIAH, JORHAT AIR FIELD, P.O AND P.S- JORHAT, PIN-785005, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM
2: MR KAMAL JAIN
SON OF LATE RATTAN KUMAR JAIN
MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S AKASH CONSTRUCTION RESIDENT OF
ROWRIAH
JORHAT AIR FIELD
P.O. - JORHAT
P.S. - JORHAT
PIN-785005
DISTRICT - JORHAT
ASSA
VERSUS
THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI 110001.
2:HE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
PLATE A GROUND FLOOR
OFFICE BLOCK-II
EAST KIDWAI NAGAR
NEW DELHI110023.
3:THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (NORTH EASTERN
REGION)
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER
BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN
G. S. ROAD
NEAR BHARALU BRIDGE
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI 781005.
4:THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II(PD)
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
JORHAT DISTRICT OFFICE
JAIL ROAD
NEAR DHALARSATRA PRESS
OPPOSITE JAIL ROAD CLUB
JORHAT -785001.
5:THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
JORHAT DISTRICT OFFICE
JAIL ROAD
NEAR DHALARSATRA PRESS
OPPOSITE JAIL ROAD CLUB
JORHAT - 785001.
6:THE RECOVERY OFFICER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
JORHAT DISTRICT OFFICE
JAIL ROAD
NEAR DHALARSATRA PRESS
OPPOSITE JAIL ROAD CLUB
JORHAT -- 785001
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. AK Sahewalla Advocate for the respondent(s):
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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.
ORDER
15.05.2026
Heard Mr. AK Sahewalla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. AK Dutta, the learned CGC who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (PD) i.e. the respondent No.4 whereby in exercise of the powers under Section 7Q read with Section 14 B of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act of 1952’), the petitioner has been directed to pay to the Establishment an amount of Rs.2,27,076/- under Section 14B and Rs.1,14,717/- under Section 7Q within 15 days of the receipt of the said order. It was further mentioned in the said order that in the event of failure of remittance of the above dues within 15 days coercive recovery actions as provided under Section 8B to 8G of the Act of 1952 shall be initiated without further notice.
3. This Court duly takes note of Section 7 (I) of the Act of 1952 whereby there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available before the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Central Government under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
4. Taking into account that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available, this Court does not find the present case to be fit case to be entertained.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
7. The dismissal of the instant writ petition, however, shall not preclude and or prejudice the petitioner to approach the learned Industrial Tribunal, if so advised.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant