In a clear message on the limits of statutory power, the High Court for the State of Telangana has dismissed a writ appeal filed by Provident Fund authorities, holding that they cannot challenge a High Court order which reduced the pre-deposit amount payable by an employer while pursuing an appeal.
The Division Bench ruled that the appeal itself was not maintainable, as the authorities failed to show any legal injury caused to them by the reduction of the pre-deposit.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from proceedings under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. M/s Hartex Rubber Private Limited, the employer, was assessed provident fund dues for the period between April 2021 and November 2021.
In August 2024, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order determining dues of over ₹52 lakh. Challenging this, the employer approached the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.
Under the law, an employer is generally required to deposit 75% of the assessed amount before an appeal is entertained. However, the Tribunal has the discretion to reduce or waive this requirement by recording reasons.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Refuses to Reopen Rent Dispute, Clears Way for Eviction Over Landlord’s Business Need
Exercising this power, the Tribunal directed the employer to deposit 30% of the amount. The employer then moved the High Court, which further reduced the pre-deposit to 15%.
Aggrieved by this reduction, the Provident Fund authorities filed a writ appeal.
The Provident Fund department contended that:
- The High Court had interfered with the statutory scheme of mandatory pre-deposit.
- Only the Tribunal had the authority to reduce the pre-deposit.
- Reducing the amount caused a “loss of revenue” to the department.
- The order set a “dangerous precedent” for future cases.
They relied on Supreme Court judgments dealing with mandatory pre-deposit provisions under other laws.
Read also:- Supreme Court Defers Unitech Homebuyers' Pleas, Sets Fresh Hearing Amid Crowd of Pending Applications
Court’s Observations
The Bench, led by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, was not persuaded.
“The appellants are statutory and quasi-judicial authorities. They cannot claim to be aggrieved parties merely because a pre-deposit amount was reduced,” the court observed.
The judges noted that:
- The Provident Fund Commissioner had no role in deciding the pre-deposit issue once the appeal was filed.
- The Enforcement Officer was even further removed from the decision-making process.
- The Tribunal itself could not file an appeal merely to defend its own order.
On the argument of revenue loss, the court was blunt. It found the claim vague and unsupported, observing that no individual or identifiable interest of the authorities had been affected.
The Bench also clarified that the Supreme Court rulings cited by the authorities related to different statutes which did not allow any waiver or reduction of pre-deposit. In contrast, the Provident Fund law expressly permits such relaxation.
“The proviso to Section 7-O allows not only reduction but even complete waiver of pre-deposit,” the Bench said.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Case After Parties Reach Settlement in Gonda Dispute
Decision of the Court
Concluding that none of the appellants could be treated as “persons aggrieved” in law, the High Court held that the writ appeal itself was not maintainable.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the order allowing the employer to deposit 15% of the assessed amount was left undisturbed. No costs were imposed.
Case Title: Authority under Section 7A EPF Act v. M/s Hartex Rubber Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 829 of 2025
Case Type: Service / Labour Law – Provident Fund
Decision Date: 19 December 2025
