Dismissed¶29

Dineshkumar v. The Secretary

Madras HC7 Jul 2026WP/25568/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 25568 of 2026; Madras High Court; Justice K. Surender; decided 07-07-2026; Dineshkumar v. Secretary, Labour and Employee Department & others; Kritika Fibre Product; Raju Arjunan; writ of mandamus; Article 226; representation dated 17.02.2026; Provident Fund (PF); Employees' State Insurance (ESI); employee code; Universal Account Number (UAN); remedy before competent Court/Tribunal; writ petition dismissed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Since the employee code and Universal Account Number (UAN) were not provided by the employer, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent Court/Tribunal in the manner known to law. ¶28

Dineshkumar Vs The Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 25568 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 25568 of 2026

Dineshkumar

..Petitioner(s)

The Secretary Labour and Employee department, Secretariat Chennai 9.

¶10

The Commissioner Commissionerate of Labour, B, Block 6th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40.

¶11

Employees Provident Fund organisation Rep by Regional provident Fund commissioner, royapettah High Road chennai 14

¶12

Employees State Insurance Corporation Sterling Road, Chennai 34

¶13

Kritika Fibre Product Rep by its proprietor Raju Arjunan 1827 Nagathamman koil street, boomadevi Nagar, Gerugambakam, Chennai 122

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

__________ Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 25568 of 2026

¶18

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose the petitioner representation dated 17.02.2026 and pass

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.J.Nissar Ahmed For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vishnu for R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the fifth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2026.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that he was employed with the fifth respondent (Kritika Fibre Product) for a period of ten years. However, his Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) benefits were not granted to him. Hence, petitioner made a representation on 17.02.2026 before the fifth respondent. Since there is no response, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶23

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the records.

¶24

When this Court questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the employee code and the employee's Universal Account Number

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 25568 of 2026

¶28

(UAN), it was stated that no such numbers were provided by the employer. If that is the grievance, it is always open to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the competent Court/ Tribunal, in the manner known to law. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition.

¶29