N.I.I.T. Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on:24.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on:08.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 08.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010688712005
+ W.P.(C) 23005/2005
N.I.I.T. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Bhasin and Mr. Kamal
Kant Tyagi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Manu Parashar, Advocate
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking quashing of Notice dated 19.10.2005
under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter ‘ the Act ’) issued by the
Respondent/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 1 of 9

2. Succinctly stated, the Petitioner is engaged in the business of
providing computer education. It entered into an agreement with the
Commissioner for Public Instruction, Karnataka, on 11.12.2000, for
providing computer education services in approximately 700
government schools in Karnataka in the “ Mahiti Sindhu ” – 2001-2006
project.
3. The Petitioner entered into facilitation agreements with 23
licensees for the said project, one of which was M/s. Myzas
Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
4. Thereafter, in 2004, the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Mangalore initiated proceedings under Section 7A of
the Act against M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and the Petitioner
for the period from March 2001 to July 2004, which were contested by
them.
5. During the course of proceedings, M/s. Myzas Technologies
Pvt. Ltd. sought impleadment of Government of Karnataka as a party,
which was dismissed vide Order dated 07.01.2005 passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore. The same was
challenged by M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. before the High
Court of Karnataka by way of a Writ Petition No. 475/2005 , which
was partly allowed and the matter was remanded back to the PF
Authorities, Manglore.
6. While the matter was pending consideration, the PF
Commissioner issued a letter dated 17.01.2005 to the Commissioner
of Public Instructions to stop all payments to the Petitioner, which was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 2 of 9

challenged by the Petitioner before the High Court of Karnataka and
the same was stayed vide Order dated 14.06.2005 passed in W.P. No.
15298/2005 .
7. On 20.06.2005, M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. admitted the
liability of the PF contributors in respect of the faculty staff. The
Proof of withdrawal of the Writ Petition filed by M/s. Myzas
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against the provident Fund Commissioner
voluntarily was also filed. Subsequently, in lieu of the above the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore vide order dated
29.06.2005 discharged the Petitioner from the Section 7A enquiry
pursuant to M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. having accepted its
liability and in view of it’s undertaking to comply with the Act.
8. Thereafter, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vide
Order dated 05.10.2005 held M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. liable
to pay the PF contributions and directed M/s. Myzas Technologies
Pvt. Ltd. to remit an amount of ₹16,69,330/- to the accounts of its
employees/faculty staff.
9. A Writ Petition was preferred by M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt.
Ltd. against the above order, since this amount of PF contribution
determined was disputed by it and the proceedings came to be stayed
vide order dated 27.10.2005. Then the PF Department, vide letter
dated 28.10.2005, directed the Petitioner to pay the amount of
₹16,69,330/- on the ground that he was the principal employer. The
same was challenged by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka. The PF Department also advised the Government of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 3 of 9

Karnataka to stop all payments to the Petitioner, which was assailed
by the Petitioner before the High Court of Karnataka and the order of
the department was stayed.
10. Despite discharge, the Respondent issued the impugned Notice
dated 19.10.2005, under Section 7A of the Act, directing the Petitioner
to appear before the Respondent and produce records for
determination of dues under the scheme inter alia list of all the
employees employed directly or through contractors along with PF
account no.s allotted and attendance/membership/payment register.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire
matter forming part of the impugned notice is sub-judice before the PF
Department, Karnataka and thus, the Respondent cannot initiate
parallel proceedings for the same subject matter in Delhi.
13. He submits that the Petitioner has already been discharged in
the proceedings initiated in Karnataka by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Mangalore vide order dated 29.06.2005.
14. Reliance has also been placed on Order dated 14.06.2007
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. 11139/2006 , to submit
that the issue raised already stands resolved and vide the
aforementioned order, the Petitioner has been absolved of all liability.
15. The learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposes the
present petition. He submits that the Petitioner’s branch located in
Karnataka is refuting to grant PF benefits to the persons employed for
the project and have informed that all PF related issues are only
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 4 of 9

handled by the Delhi branch. Thus, he submits that the Respondent
had no other option but to initiate proceedings against the Petitioner in
Delhi.
16. Submissions heard and the record perused.
17. A perusal of the record reveals that proceedings under Section
7A of the Act were initially instituted by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Mangalore, in relation to the Mahiti Sindhu Project
undertaken in the State of Karnataka. Significantly, the proceedings
were initiated not merely against M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
but also against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, therefore, was afforded
an opportunity to participate in the inquiry before the competent
authority.
18. It is an admitted position that during the pendency of the
proceedings, M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. accepted its liability
towards provident fund contributions in respect of the faculty engaged
by it for the project. Taking note of the said admission, the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore, vide order dated
29.06.2005, discharged the Petitioner from the inquiry. The Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore, by order dated 05.10.2005,
held M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd. liable to remit provident fund
contributions amounting to ₹16,69,330/- (as already a sum of Rs.
3,73,707/- was remitted by M/s Myzas out of the total assessed
liability of Rs. 20,43,037/-) in respect of its employees.
19. Thus, the issue relating to determination of liability under the
Act, insofar as the employees engaged through M/s. Myzas
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 5 of 9

Technologies Pvt. Ltd. were concerned, had already been examined by
the competent authority. The Petitioner was consciously discharged
from the proceedings after the authority accepted the position that the
statutory liability was to be borne by M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt.
Ltd.
20. It is not the case of the Respondent that the order dated
29.06.2005 has either been challenged before any competent forum or
otherwise stands set aside. Consequently, the said order continued to
operate and bind the parties.
21. Notably, as per the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent,
W.P. No. 24012/2005 was filed by M/s. Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
against the order dated 05.10.2025. The assessment was of Rs.
20,43,037/- out of which Petitioner therein had paid Rs. 3,73,707/- and
the balance of Rs. 16,69,330/- remained. The High Court of Karnataka
stayed the proceedings, on the Petitioner therein i.e. M/s. Myzas again
remitting an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Another W.P. No. 27499/2025
was filed before High Court of Karnataka by M/s. Avadi Computers
Pvt. Ltd. assailing the Notice under Section 7-A issued when M/s
Avadi Computers Pvt. Ltd. had defaulted in payment of the
employee’s share of the PF. The W.P. No. 26875/2005 was filed by
M/s Insoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. challenging an Order dated
28.10.2005, vide which liability of Rs. 10,64,219/- was assessed under
Section 7-A. The order was stayed subject to deposition of Rs.
3,00,000/- by the Petitioner therein. Additionally, W.P. No.
1139/2006 was also filed before the High Court of Karnatak by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 6 of 9

Petitioner/NIIT against Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Hubli, assailing the order dated 07.07.2006 passed by Employees
Provident Fund Organization on the ground that no enquiry is liable to
be initiated against the Petitioner when the main defaulter is the
service provider i.e. M/s Kamath Srininvas Computers Pvt. Ltd. The
Petitioner was undisputedly absolved of all liability vide order dated
14.06.2006.
22. Admittedly, all these petitions have been filed before the High
Court of Karnataka.
23. The record indicates that the Mahiti Sindhu Project was
implemented through several licensees/facilitators and proceedings
under Section 7A came to be initiated in respect of different
facilitators. Various assessment orders and proceedings arising
therefrom became the subject matter of challenge before the High
Court of Karnataka. Thus, the disputes relating to provident fund
liability arising from the Mahiti Sindhu Project were already engaging
the attention of the Provident Fund Authorities and the High Court of
Karnataka. The Respondent itself has referred to multiple writ
petitions arising from such proceedings before the High Court of
Karnataka. Thus, the authorities in Karnataka had already assumed
jurisdiction over disputes emanating from the implementation of the
Mahiti Sindhu Project.
24. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, the Respondent
proceeded to issue the impugned Notice dated 19.10.2005 requiring
the Petitioner to once again produce records for determination of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 7 of 9

provident fund dues in respect of the very same establishment and the
very same project in Karnataka. Additionally, the impugned Notice
does not advert to the proceedings conducted at Karnataka or the
previous discharge of the Petitioner. The impugned notice dated
19.10.2005, proceeds on the basis of the very same agreement entered
into between the Petitioner and the Government of Karnataka and
seeks production of records relating to employees engaged directly as
well as through contractors for determination of provident fund dues
under Section 7A of the Act. The Respondent has not disputed that it
was aware of the proceedings pending before the Provident Fund
Authorities in Karnataka. In fact, this Court, by order dated
12.10.2022, had specifically called upon the Respondent to indicate
whether, in view of those proceedings, it intended to continue with the
impugned enquiry.
25. The Affidavit filed pursuant thereto merely reiterates the
Respondent's intention to proceed and refers to the pendency of
proceedings concerning different facilitators before the Karnataka
authorities. The submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent that
the Petitioner's office at Karnataka had informed the authorities that
provident fund matters were being dealt with by the Delhi office
cannot justify the initiation of parallel proceedings. Merely because
the Petitioner's registered office or another establishment falls within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Respondent would not, by itself,
empower the Respondent to reopen an issue which had already been
examined by the competent authority exercising jurisdiction over the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 8 of 9

establishment where the employees were engaged and where the
inquiry had culminated in a final determination or initiate parallel
proceedings/inquiry.
26. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that once the
Petitioner had been discharged from the inquiry by the competent
authority and the liability had been specifically fastened upon M/s.
Myzas Technologies Pvt. Ltd., there remained no occasion for the
Respondent to initiate fresh proceedings against the Petitioner in
respect of the very same subject matter, in Delhi, when the matter is
already sub-judice before the Karnataka PF Authorities.
27. Accordingly, the Notice dated 19.10.2005 issued by the
respondent under Section 7A of the Act, is hereby quashed.
28. Since the impugned notice itself is quashed on the aforesaid
grounds, the question whether the Petitioner is the principal employer
under the Act is rendered academic and is not examined.
29. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 23005/2005 Page 9 of 9