Provident Fund claims must be backed by formal assessment orders to be admitted in CIRP.

The Appellant, Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), filed an appeal against an order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) in I.A. (IBC) 3126/MB/2025.

The Appellant sought directions for the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to treat PF dues of ₹6,08,927/- as priority payments under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the IBC and Section 11 of the EPF & MP Act, 1952.

The claim was originally based on an enforcement officer's report dated 10.03.2025 rather than a formal assessment order.

The NCLT dismissed the application but granted 15 days to file a claim in the prescribed form with relevant statutory orders.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Resolution Professional (RP) informed the Appellate Tribunal that a resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor had already been approved on 30.01.2026.

The court applied Section 7A(1) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which mandates that the determination of amounts due from an employer must be made by specific authorized officers (e.g., Central/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner) through a formal inquiry and order, rather than a mere report by an enforcement officer.

It also observed the statutory framework of Section 7Q (interest) and Section 14B (damages) of the PF Act, noting these are consequential to a Section 7A order.

Furthermore, it adhered to the principle of finality in insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, regarding the approval of a Resolution Plan.

The Tribunal reasoned that under Section 7A of the EPF Act, a mere report by an "Area Enforcement Officer" does not constitute a legally enforceable demand; a formal order by a competent authority (Commissioner level) is a prerequisite for a debt to be considered "due and payable" by the Corporate Debtor.

Since the Appellant failed to produce such an order before the IRP or the NCLT, the rejection of the claim was deemed legally sound.

Regarding the subsequent relief sought, the Tribunal noted that while the NCLT had granted liberty to file a fresh claim within 15 days, the factual landscape had changed because a Resolution Plan was approved on 30.01.2026.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it could not issue new directions to the RP at this late stage, as the approval of the plan effectively concluded the relevant stage of the insolvency process.

The Tribunal declined to issue further directions to the RP because the Resolution Plan had already been approved.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, but the appeal itself was dismissed.