M/s.Rathinavel Subramanian Educational Trust(Puducherry), Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, Puducherry, No.101,100 Feet Road, Cholan Nagar, Olandai Keerapalayam, Puducherry-605 004.

¶10

..Respondent in both cases

¶11

Prayer in W.P.No.28082 of 2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the Respondent in TBM/SRO/PCY/PC/1789/Comp/Div IV/7A-Order/2016 passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 dated 08.12.2016 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and not in accordance with law and consequently direct the respondent to conduct fresh assessment proceedings after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.28083 of 2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the Respondent in TBM/SRO/PCY/PC/1789/Comp/Div IV/7A-Order/2016 passed under Section 7C of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 dated 14.12.2016 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and not in accordance with law and consequently direct the respondent to conduct fresh assessment proceedings after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶13

__________Page 1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

WP No. 28082 of 2026

¶16

In both cases Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, For Petitioner: Additional Advocate General for Mr.R.Sivaraman

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

These writ petitions challenges the orders passed by the respondent under Section 7A and 7C of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952.

¶19

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that he would raise all his grievance before the Industrial Tribunal who is the competent authority to decide the issue.

¶20

In view of the same, it is for the Industrial Tribunal to entertain the

¶21

application, if it is filed by the petitioner herein, in accordance with law.

¶22

With the above observation, these writ petitions are dismissed. No

¶23

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

(K. SURENDER,J.)

¶25

21-07-2026

¶26

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vum

¶27

__________Page 2 of 4

¶28

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

WP No. 28082 of 2026

K.SURENDER J.

vum

WP Nos.28082 and 28083 of 2026 and WMP Nos.30739, 30740, 30741 & 30742 of 2026

¶33

21-07-2026

¶34

__________Page 3 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 28082 of 2026

¶37

To

¶38

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, SubRegional Office,Puducherry, No.101,100 Feet Road,Cholan Nagar, Olandai Keerapalayam, Puducherry-605004.

¶39

__________Page 4 of 4

¶40

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

M/s.Rathinavel Subramanian Educational Trust(Puducherry), v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Rathinavel Subramanian Educational Trust(Puducherry), v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Vijaya Medicals and Educatinal trust Vs P.Jayanthi

The Management Vs N.Kalirajan

P.Subramani Vs The Management

Sri Rangavilas G.S. and W.Mills Vs the Recovery Officer

P.Aravamuthan Vs the Managment of M/S.Indian

M/S.Rathinavel Subramanian Educational Trust(Puducherry), Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii