Disposed¶30

M/S.Pulsus Helath Tech LLP v. the Regional Commissioner

Madras HC21 Jul 2026WP/34679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed: Madras HC (single judge) directs CGIT Chennai, the designate EPF Appellate Tribunal, to conclude EPF Appeal No.208/2024 preferably within three months. Challenge was to the Tribunal's refusal to refund EPF Section 7A dues of Rs.2,09,50,156/- (order dated 09.02.2024) fully recovered from the bank account of M/s.Pulsus Helath Tech LLP; petitioner claimed return of at least 25% against the 75% maximum deposit ceiling (25%-75% discretionary band). Refund-power question left undecided; no precedent cited; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on refund; writ petition disposed of with a request/direction to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai to dispose of appeal E.P.A.No.208/2024 expeditiously, preferably within three months; no costs. ¶30

M/S.Pulsus Helath Tech LLP Vs the Regional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.08.2025 in EPF Appeal No.208 of 2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, in so far as it holds that the Tribunal has no power to direct the respondent to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner's bank account, should be quashed by way of a Writ of Certiorari. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

In view of the present scenario and the undertaking given by both counsels that they would not delay the appeal proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai is requested to dispose of the appeal in E.P.A.No.208/2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; with this direction the writ petition stands disposed of, and the question of the Tribunal's power to direct refund of the recovered amount is not adjudicated by this Court.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Surender, J.), order dated 21-07-2026 in WP No. 34679 of 2025: Writ petition under Article 226 by M/s.Pulsus Helath Tech LLP sought certiorari to quash the order dated 04.08.2025 in EPF Appeal No.208 of 2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai (designate EPF Appellate Tribunal), in so far as it held that the Tribunal has no power to direct refund of the amount already recovered from the petitioner's bank account. Background: Rs.2,09,50,156/- was determined due from the petitioner under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by order dated 09.02.2024; the respondent attached the petitioner's bank account and realised the entire amount; the petitioner, learning of the 7A proceedings thereafter, filed E.P.A.No.208/2024 (delay condoned) and applied for return of at least 25% of the recovery, since the maximum deposit for entertaining an appeal is 75% (Tribunal discretion 25%-75%). The Court did not adjudicate the refund-power question; noting the appeal is at the final-arguments stage and both counsels undertook not to delay proceedings, it disposed of the writ petition requesting the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal preferably within three months, without costs.

¶1

WP No. 34679 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

WP No. 34679 of 2025 and

¶7

WMP No.38868 of 2025

¶8

M/s.Pulsus Helath Tech LLP, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mrs.Anitha Gedela, H.No.1-90/A, Plot Nos.20 and 21, Kavuri Hills, Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telengana-500081.

¶9

..Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.

¶12

The Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai which is the designate EPF Appellate Tribunal relating to the order dated 04.08.2025 in EPF Appeal No.208 of 2024 and quash the same in so far as it holds that the Tribunal has no power to direct the respondent to refund the amount which has already been recovered by the respondent from the bank account of the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner: Ms.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan For Respondents: Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu For R1 & R2

¶16

__________Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 34679 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 04.08.2025 in EPF Appeal No.208 of 2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.

¶21

The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai which is the Appellate Tribunal for refund of the debited amount as against the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘the Act’) determining the amount due from the petitioner as Rs.2,09,50,156/- and debited from the bank account of the petitioner.

¶22

The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount under Section 7 A of

¶23

the Act was determined as Rs.2,09,50,156/- by an order dated 09.02.2024. Thereafter the respondent attached the bank account of the petitioner company and realised the entire amount. After attachment and recovery of the entire amount, according to the petitioner they came to know about the said 7A Proceedings. Hence E.P.A.No.208/2024 was filed before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, however with a delay. The delay was condoned and the appeal was entertained. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking return of the amount which was already attached and recovered by the respondent, mainly on the ground that for entertaining an

¶24

__________Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 34679 of 2025

¶27

appeal maximum amount that can be deposited is 75% and with the discretion of the Tribunal, it can be in between 25% to 75%. while the maximum amount is 75 %, 100% has already been recovered, the petitioner sought to return atleast 25% of the amount that was recovered.

¶28

The learned counsel on either side would submit that the appeal is at the stage of final arguments and for filing written arguments.

¶29

Keeping in mind the present scenario and the undertaking given by both the counsels that they would not delay the appeal proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai is requested to dispose of the appeal in E.P.A.No.208/2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30