Dismissed¶66

The Central Board of Trustees, v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC19 Mar 2025WP/6758/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court common order (M. Dhandapani J., 19.03.2025) dismissing W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016 (with WMP.Nos.6020 & 6024 of 2016) filed by Central Board of Trustees, EPF Organisation / Regional PF Commissioner against EPF Appellate Tribunal orders ATA.No.168(13)2014 (Dr.Mehtas Nursing Home) and ATA.No.501(13)2010 (Ennore Thermal Power Station); maintainability of writ petition by Board of Trustees without specific authorisation/permission of Central/State Government; ratio of W.P.No.27422 of 2015 (order dated 17.03.2025) applied; Sections 5-A, 19, 20, 21, 7-A, 7-I; Tribunal orders confirmed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None — writ petitions dismissed and the Tribunal's orders confirmed ¶66

The Central Board of Trustees, Vs The Presiding… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — writ petitions dismissed and the Tribunal's orders confirmed

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions filed by the Central Board of Trustees/EPF Organisation (through the original authority) under Article 226 to quash the orders of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal are maintainable, given that the Board is not empowered to challenge the Tribunal's order in the absence of specific authorisation/permission of the Central/State Government.

¶36

Court's answer

The ratio laid down in this Court's order in W.P.No.27422 of 2015 dated 17.03.2025 — that the Board of Trustees is not clothed with jurisdiction/power to question an order passed by the Tribunal in the absence of specific authorisation or permission from the Central/State Government — is squarely applicable to the facts of the present cases.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

Applying that ratio, both Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016, with connected WMP.Nos.6020 & 6024 of 2016) are dismissed, confirming the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions (certiorari under Article 226) by the Central Board of Trustees, EPF Organisation, challenging orders of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal — Ref.No.ATA.No.168(13)2014 dt. 09.10.2014 (respondent: M/s. Dr.Mehtas Nursing Home (P) Ltd.) and Ref.No.ATA.No.501(13)2010 dt. 04.07.2011 (respondent: M/s. Ennore Thermal Power Station). Applying its earlier order dated 17.03.2025 in W.P.No.27422 of 2015 (which, reading Sections 5-A, 19, 20 and 21 together with Sections 7-A and 7-I of the Act, held that powers vest in the Central/State Government, that the Board is a mere custodian/maintenance agent of the fund, and that neither the Board nor the original authority may question a Tribunal order without specific authorisation/sub-delegation), the Court held the writ petitions filed at the instance of the Board to be acts without jurisdiction, dismissed them, and confirmed the Tribunal's orders; no costs; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed. Single-Judge common order of Justice M. Dhandapani dated 19.03.2025.

¶1

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016 and

¶7

WMP.Nos.6020 & 6024 of 2016

¶8

W.P.No.6758 of 2016:

¶9

The Central Board of Trustees, EPF Organisation, Represented by The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, No:37 Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Presiding Officer,

¶13

Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,

¶14

Scope Minar, Core-II, 4^th Floor, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092.

¶15

M/s. Dr.Mehtas Nursing Home (P) Ltd., 21, MC Nicholas Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 003. ...Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Ref.No.ATA.No.168(13)2014 dated 09.10.2014 and quash the order passed therein.

¶17

Page No.1 of 9

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶20

W.P.No.6760 of 2016:

¶21

The Central Board of Trustees, EPF Organisation, Represented by The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Chennai – 600 014.

¶22

...Petitioner

¶23

Vs.

¶24

The Presiding Officer,

¶25

Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minar, Core-II, 4^th Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092.

¶26

M/s. Ennore Thermal Power Station, Ennore, Chennai – 600 057. ...Respondents

¶27

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Ref.No.ATA.No.501(13)2010 dated on 04.07.2011 and quash the order passed therein.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Sundaram (in both W.P's.) For Respondents : R1 – Tribunal (in both W.P's.) : Mr.V.S.Paul Raj (for R2 in W.P.No.6758 of 2016) : Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co (for R2 in W.P.No.6760 of 2016)

¶29

Page No.2 of 9

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶32

COMMON ORDER

¶33

Since the issue involved in both the Writ petitions are similar in

¶34

nature, they are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶35

When the matters are taken up for consideration today, learned

¶36

counsel appearing for the respective 2^nd respondents brought to the notice of this Court that similar issue has been raised in W.P.No.27422 of 2015 and this Court, vide order dated 17.03.2025 had dismissed the writ petition holding that the Board of Trustees are not empowered to challenge the order of the Tribunal in the absence of specific authorisation/permission of the Central/State Government as the case may be. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly concedes with the same.

¶37

This Court perused the order passed in W.P.No.27422 of 2015,

¶38

wherein, this Court has held as under :-

¶39

“ 15. A harmonious and conjoint reading of Sections 19, 20 and 21 clearly reveal that while the powers are vested with the Central Government/State Government insofar as any act is concerned, however, the Central Government/ State

¶40

Page No.3 of 9

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶43

Government, as the case may, be sub-delegate the said power upon the Board or any other authority to do certain tasks, if it thinks fit that it is for the efficient administration of the Act and that when such directions are given, the Central Board shall comply with the said direction. However, without such sub-delegation of power, the Board would not be clothed with the necessary power than the power available u/s 5-A of the Act insofar as management of the fund and maintenance of accounts are concerned.

¶44

16. Administration of the fund, which is vested in the Board is being carried on by the subordinates, viz., the Assistant Provident Fund Officer and other authorities higher up the hierarchy. However, as aforesaid, the Assistant Provident Officer or the Employees Provident Officer, as the case may be, being the original authority u/s 7-A of the Act, is a quasi-judicial authority, who adjudicates the issue with regard to payment of contribution towards the fund. The said authorities rendering quasi-judicial function, any order passed by them, which is challenged before the Tribunal, the original authority, in the absence of specific authorisation by the Central Government, is not permitted to question the same.

¶45

17. In the same stretch, a clear and unambiguous

¶46

Page No.4 of 9

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶49

reading of Section 5-A, 19, 20 and 21 would reveal that while the duty cast upon the Board of Trustees is the maintenance of the fund and submissions of accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is only the Central Government/State Government, which is the appropriate authority to question any order that may be passed by the Assistant Provident Commissioner and the Board of Trustees, being a mere custodian and maintenance agent of the fund, is not clothed with any power to question the order passed by the Tribunal, in the absence of any specific authorisation granted to it by the Central Government. Therefore, the Board of Trustees also stand on a similar footing as the Assistant Provident Fund authority, who is the original authority u/s 7-A of the Act.

¶50

18. It is clear from Section 19 and 20 that only if direction and permission is given by the Central/State Government, do the Board of Trustees assume jurisdiction and power to question the order passed by the Tribunal and in the absence of any specific direction or permission granted by the Central Government/State Government, the Board of Trustees would also be not vested with any jurisdiction to question the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶51

19. In the present case, it is not the case of the

¶52

Page No.5 of 9

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶55

petitioner that the Central Government/State Government, as the case may be, has given any specific authorisation/permission to the Board of Trustees, viz., the petitioner herein to question the order passed by the Tribunal. In the absence of such power being granted to the Board of Trustees, viz., the petitioner herein, the petitioner cannot subsume and assume the power of the Central Government and question the order passed by the Tribunal as the Board of Trustees have no jurisdiction to question the order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such a power, the writ petition filed at the instance of the Board of Trustees is akin to the writ petition filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and the same cannot be held to be maintainable.

¶56

20. One other aspect which is necessary to be pointed out here is the fact that the petition has been filed by the original authority representing the Board of Trustees. This Court has already held that the original authority cannot question the order passed by the Tribunal and that being the admitted position, the original authority will have no power to file the petition on behalf of the Board of Trustees. If at all the Board of Trustees is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, upon permission/authorisation being granted by the Central Government, the Board of Trustees have to

¶57

Page No.6 of 9

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶60

file the petition and through sub-delegation the Board of Trustees cannot direct the original authority to file the petition. In the case on hand, the Board of Trustees have not obtained any permission and, therefore, they would not have any jurisdiction to assail the order passed by the Tribunal and further they cannot sub-delegate the filing to the original authority. Therefore, the challenge made to the order of the Tribunal by the petitioner herein is an act without jurisdiction and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶61

21. It has come to the knowledge of this Court that the order passed by the original authority u/s 7- A and the order passed by the Tribunal u/s 7-L of the Act are not being communicated to the employers/employees/Original Authority so as to enable them to work out the further remedy in the manner known to law either before the Tribunal or before this Court. In such view of the matter, once an order is passed either by the original authority or on appeal by the Tribunal, the original authority and the Tribunal, upon final disposal of the issue, is directed to communicate a copy of their order to the employer/employees so as to enable them to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.”

¶62

Page No.7 of 9

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶65

4. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of

¶66

the present cases. Accordingly, applying the ratio laid down above, these Writ petitions are dismissed, confirming the impugned orders passed by the 1 st respondent/Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶67

19.03.2025

¶68

skt

¶69

Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No

¶70

¶71

The Central Board of Trustees, EPF Organisation, Represented by The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, No:37 Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014.

¶72

The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minar, Core-II, 4^th Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092.

¶73

Page No.8 of 9

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016

¶76

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶77

skt

¶78

W.P.Nos.6758 & 6760 of 2016 and WMP.Nos.6020 & 6024 of 2016