Dismissed¶27

M/S.Nadippisai Pulavar v. Regional Provident Fund

Madras HC20 Feb 2025WP(MD)/1212/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPF & MP Act 1952; Section 14B order challenged; Section 7-I statutory appeal; doctrine of efficacious alternative remedy; writ of certiorarified mandamus; interim stay not extended; Appellate Tribunal; limitation relaxed; status quo for eight weeks; no costs; Madurai Bench; sugar mills vs EPFO.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail the alternative appeal remedy under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 within six weeks; any such appeal to be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal without reference to limitation and decided on merits; status quo to be maintained for eight weeks; no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) No.1025 of 2019 closed. ¶27

M/S.Nadippisai Pulavar Vs Regional Provident Fund — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Section 14B order dated 05.04.2018 is maintainable notwithstanding the existence of an effective alternative appeal remedy under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition because the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy provided under the statute (appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952).

¶26

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files an appeal against the impugned order dated 05.04.2018 within six weeks, the Appellate Tribunal shall entertain it without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶27
Because the matter was not listed after the earlier interim order expired, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo for eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.ratio¶32-33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Mummeni Sudheer Kumar, J.) — Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash order No.CB/TRY/PDC/C-34/27100/14B PROC/2018 dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — An interim stay granted on 23.01.2019 till 25.02.2019 was not extended — Held, the petitioner having an effective and efficacious alternative appeal remedy under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952, the writ petition is not entertained and is dismissed — Liberty granted to appeal within six weeks; the Appellate Tribunal to entertain the appeal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law — Parties directed to maintain status quo for eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, in view of the earlier interim order and non-listing of the matter — No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1212 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1212 of 2019 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.1025 of 2019

¶8

M/s.Nadippisai Pulavar K.R.Ramasamy Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Thalainayar Ilanthope Post-609 201 Mayiladuthurai Nagapattinam District Through its Managing Director

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office No.18, Madurai Road Trichy-620 008 Trichy District

¶12

2.Enforcement Officer Employees' Provident Fund Organisation District Office 95, Mothilal Street Kumbakonam Thanjavur District ... Respondents

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.1212 of 2019

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the file of the first respondent herein No.CB/TRY/PDC/C-34/27100/14B PROC/2018 dated 05.04.2018 received on 11.04.2018, issued by the first respondent and to quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthikeyan for Mr.P.Chandrabose

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by an order bearing No.CB/TRY/PDC/C-34/27100/14B PROC/2018, dated 05.04.2018, passed by the first respondent under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, “the Act, 1952”) and this Court, having entertained this writ petition, on 23.01.2019, passed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 05.04.2018 till 25.02.2019, however, thereafter, the interim order was not extended.

¶21

_____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.1212 of 2019

¶24

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is

¶25

noticed that the petitioner has an effective alternative appeal remedy under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952.

¶26

3. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy provided under the statute.

¶27

4. In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative appeal remedy available under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the petitioner files any appeal as against the impugned order, dated 05.04.2018, passed by the first respondent, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶28

5. In view of the fact that this Court has already passed an interim order initially on 23.01.2019 till 25.02.2019, however, this matter was

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.1212 of 2019

¶32

not listed before the Court thereafter, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the parties concerned to maintain status quo for a period of eight weeks from

¶33

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

20.02.2025

¶35

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶36

krk

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

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