Saravanan Vs The Commissioner

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to recover petitioner's Employee Provident Fund (EPF), Gratuity and compensation amount from the 4^th respondent and give to the petitioner.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For R1 : Mr.P.Karthick For R2 and R3 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For R4 : M/s.G.Dhalakshmi For R5 : No appearance

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, an employee of the 4^th respondent Firm, has filed

¶26

this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 to recover the petitioner's Employee Provident Fund, gratuity and compensation amount from the 4^th respondent.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

WP(MD). No.5202 of 2022

¶30

When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, Mr.R.Murugappan, learned counsel, who filed this writ petition, submits that he returned the papers to the petitioner. However, he has not filed any memo to that effect.

¶31

The learned counsel for the EPF authority submits that the EPF contribution due to the petitioner of Rs.26,104/- was paid to the petitioner's bank account on 29.06.2016. With regard to the EPF pension, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has to make a claim application and the same would be considered and necessary orders would be passed without any further delay.

¶32

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that a compensation amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid to the petitioner.

¶33

Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, this writ petition is closed with a direction to the 4^th respondent to pay the gratuity amount, if any due to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

WP(MD). No.5202 of 2022

¶37

copy of this order.

¶38

Since the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he has returned the papers, the High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to communicate this order to the petitioner and to facilitate the petitioner to file his application for pension before the EPF Authority and also ensure that the eligible pension and the eligible gratuity amount to be paid by the 4^th respondent are settled to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶39

09.10.2025

¶40

ogy

¶41

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

¶42

To

¶43

The Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Lady Doak College Road, Madurai – 625 002.

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

WP(MD). No.5202 of 2022

¶47

The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Bharathi Ula Road, Near Old Passport Office & Thamarai Thotti, Race Course Colony, Madurai – 625 002.

¶48

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Gratuity), Bharathi Ula Road, Near Old Passport Office & Thamarai Thotti, Race Course Colony, Madurai – 625 002.

¶49

A.Jeyakumar Properitor, J.K.Engineering and Electro Pleaters, Sun Electro 1 Cate, Pandalkudi Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District – 626 101.

¶50

The Manager, TVS Sundaram Fastners Limited, Madurai Road, Krishnapuram, Aaviyur Road, Kariyappatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶51

The Chairperson, High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

WP(MD). No.5202 of 2022

¶55

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶56

ogy

¶57

WP(MD) No.5202 of 2022

¶58

09.10.2025

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

Saravanan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Sridhar Vs The Managing Director

Ethirajulu.N Vs The Secretary to Government

The Management Vs The Controlling Authority

Palanivelu K Vs the District Collector

M/s.Ayyappan Textiles Limited Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/s. A.2731, The National Co.Op. Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II