Recovery under Section 8-F of EPF Act requires reasonable notice and compliance with natural justice.

The Respondent No. 1 (Assistant PF Commissioner) determined a provident fund liability of ₹8,52,33,497 against the Petitioner for the period 2011–2016 via an order dated May 4, 2017, under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("the Act")

A recovery notice under Section 8-F was issued on June 14, 2017

Following a prior Writ Petition, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the EPF Tribunal in August 2022, which was subsequently dismissed in default on October 15, 2025

While an application for restoration of the appeal was pending, the Respondent No. 2 (Recovery Officer) issued a fresh recovery order on December 8, 2025, under Section 8-F(3)(i) of the Act

On December 9, 2025, the Respondents unilaterally withdrew ₹3,65,86,242 from the Petitioner’s bank accounts

The Petitioner challenged the December 8 recovery order and the dismissal of the appeal

The court primarily applied Section 8-F of the Act, which governs "other modes of recovery" of provident fund dues

It relied on the principle that proceedings under Section 8-F are quasi-judicial and necessitate adherence to natural justice, specifically the requirement of reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard

The court applied the precedent from B.T. Kadlag Constructions v. EPFO, which established that a Recovery Officer must first give notice and consider any statement on oath before issuing prohibitory orders

The court cited Delhi Development Authority v. Ram Prakash, holding that even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, statutory authorities must act within a "reasonable time"

The court observed that the impugned recovery order dated December 8, 2025, failed to reference any contemporary notice, relying instead on a "stale" notice issued in 2017

The court reasoned that the eight-year gap between the notice and the recovery action violated the requirement of "reasonable proximity" between the notice and the final order

It characterized the freezing of 25 bank accounts and the unilateral recovery of over ₹3.65 Crores as "arbitrary" and "hasty," particularly because the Petitioner’s restoration application for the main appeal was still pending before the Tribunal

The court emphasized that the Recovery Officer is statutorily enjoined to follow the procedure under Section 8-F(3)(i), and the failure to provide a fresh opportunity to contest the demand constituted a significant infraction of the statutory mandate

The court held that a notice issued eight years prior cannot serve as a valid legal basis for drastic recovery actions

While the court did not rule on the restoration of the appeal (Prayer Clause b), it granted the Petitioner liberty to apply for a refund of the recovered amount (₹3,65,86,242) by filing an appropriate application before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Nagpur, where the restoration application remains pending

Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs