AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
This Court vide an order dated 11.03.2026 had considered the prayer of the learned advocate for the petitioner and disposed of the writ application being WPA 5031 of 2026 on the following observations:-
“Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to prefer an appeal, as he has accepted the impugned order. His only prayer before this Court is that the petitioner’s prayer by way of an application dated 14th October, 2025 and 24th December, 2025 have been ignored by the respondent no. 3 herein. The petitioner only prays for easy installments to pay the balance amount due. It is submitted that a sum of about Rs.50 lakhs and odd is outstanding at present. Considering the same and in the interest of justice, the writ application is disposed of with the direction petitioner herein that the shall pay the balance amount in three equal installments. Fraction, if any, shall be paid along with the last installment. The first installment is to be paid by 10th of April, 2026 and the 3 subsequent installments by 10th of May and 10th of June, 2026 respectively. Considering the relief granted to the petitioner herein, the notices dated 20.2.2024 to show cause as to why the warrant of arrest shall not be issued, be stayed till 20th June, 2026. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the directions of this Court in this order, in respect of the payments as specified, the respondent no. 4 shall be at liberty to proceed in the present case in accordance with law. WPA 5031 of 2026 stands disposed of.”
The applicant has now preferred an application being CAN 2 of 2026 praying for recalling of the said order dated 11.03.2026 on the ground that they challenged the 7A order on merit.
It is stated in CAN 2 of 2026 in paragraph 12 that on the day of disposal of the writ petition, the applicant’s competent person being the director of the company was not present in the Court Room and had not instructed the learned advocate to accept the order under Section 7A of the act and pray for installments.
It is further stated in paragraphs 15 and 16 that the applicant was also not informed about the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 11th March, 2026 by his erstwhile learned counsel till the end of May 2026. It is only when demands for installment were raised by the respondents EPFO, that the petitioner enquired with the erstwhile advocate, who then informed that an order had been passed and he is in the process of obtaining the certified copy.
However, since then he became incommunicado. The petitioner having very little awareness of legal proceedings somehow through common acquaintances approached one Advocate Mr. Panda who applied for a certified copy of the order on 9th June, 2026 and received it on 10th June, 2026.
However, the erstwhile learned advocate on record for the writ petitioner declined to do so. Accordingly the petitioner/applicant has now contacted its present learned advocate on record, the junior counsel in this case in the middle of June 2026 and held conferences with the learned Senior advocate on two or three occasions and after such meetings and perusal of records, the present application was drafted by the junior counsel and settled by the learned Senior advocate.
It is further stated by the applicant that while the impugned order dated 11th March, 2026 which was passed on consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner on stating that he had received instructions from the applicant which is totally false has caused severe prejudice to the applicant herein and thus the applicant is now seeking recall of the said order and for hearing of the application on merit.
Mr. Majumder learned senior counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that in the interest of justice the applicant should not be made to suffer for the conduct of the learned counsel who he had engaged in good faith, but had wrongly represented the case of the petitioner before the Court.
The writ application had been preferred challenging an order dated 29.5.2024 and certificate of arrears under Section 8 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 dated 08.04.2025 certifying arrears and notice of demand to the defaulter dated 29.04.2025 as well as show cause notices both dated 20.02.2026 as to why warrant of arrest should not be issued.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the EPF Authority that the impugned order is appealable and as the same was passed on 29.5.2024, an appeal would now be barred by limitation.
Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Assistant Commissioner (CT) and Ors. –vs-Glaxo Smith LeClean Consumer Health Care Ltd. (2020) 19SCC 681 (para 19), Mr. Tiwary submits that such delay in these cases cannot be condoned.
The petitioner’s case on merit in short is that:-
“………..that by reason of the pronouncement of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the components of Travelling Allowance, HRA and Incentive cannot be construed as 'basic wages' for the purpose of attracting contribution liability. That apart, employees who are to be reckoned as 'excluded employees'; have been possibly included by the Authorised Officer while determining contributions. The amount representing cost price of materials might also have been considered as part of basic wages for the purpose of assessing the so-called dues for the period of enquiry. Furthermore, the order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 lacks the basic particulars and reasoning as regards determination of liability. It is settled law that the number of employees, the components of their wages attracting the liabilities are the minimum requirement or foundational basis or reasoning for an order to be passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. In the instant case, there is no such mentioning in the order under Section 7A of the Act; and therefore on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice alone the writ petition ought to be allowed and the impugned order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is liable to be set aside.”
Mr. Majumder, further submits that there was no instructions from the petitioner’s side to his previous counsel to accept the order under Section 7A. It is stated that such a statement before the Court has seriously prejudiced the petitioner, which shall cause irreparable loss and injury, if the order impugned is not recalled.
Mr. Majumder also argues that the unreasoned order under Section 7A of the EPF Act is also not in accordance with law and if permitted to remain, on acceptance under total misconception and guidance by the earlier counsel, shall amount to abuse of process of law. The judgment in Gurbir Kaur vs Regional Provident Fund-Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Ors., 2005 SCC OnLine Cal 637, Para 26, is relied upon.
Regarding the ground of delay on the point of limitation, raised by Mr. Tiwary, learned counsel for the opposite party, Mr. Majumder argues that when the petitioner shall place the sufficient cause for such delay, it is for the Court to consider such a prayer, at the appropriate stage.
Mr. Majumder further submits that if the petitioner’s chance of preferring an appeal is barred by limitation, the petitioner cannot be left without any relief against a prima facie erroneous and illegal order, and thus the writ application shall be maintainable, if not for anything else, but for the ends of justice.
Grounds to Set Aside a Consent Order are as follows:-
Fraud: If the consent was obtained through deliberate deception or misrepresentation.
Coercion or Duress: If a party was forced, threatened, or blackmailed into agreeing.
Undue Influence: If one party abused a position of power or trust to force an unfair agreement.
Mistake: If there was a fundamental error regarding the core basis or material facts of the agreement.
Non-Disclosure: If a party failed to disclose critical information (common in financial or estate settlements).
Supervening Events: If unexpected major events completely invalidate the underlying foundation of the order.
Lack of Valid Consent: If no lawful, genuine compromise or agreement was actually made (such as an unauthorized compromise or absence of a valid recording under procedural rules).
In the Judgment of Golab Koer vs Badshah Bahadur, decided on 14 April, 1909, the Calcutta High Court, in respect of such an order where consent was not a conscious one, has set aside the order.
Thus in the present case a prima facie case of serious prejudice has been out for the wrong advice of the earlier counsel and thus for the ends of justice, the order dated 11.03.2026 is hereby recalled.
CAN 2 of 2026 is allowed.
WPA 5031 of 2026 is restored to its file and number.
Department to note. The writ application be listed in the monthly list of December, 2026 for hearing on merit.
Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.