Case Law Details
Central Board of Trustees Vs Poppys Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)
In Madras High Court, the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund, represented by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, filed an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging an order of the writ court which had held that the Board of Trustees had no authority to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The dispute arose after the competent authority under the Employees Provident Fund Act passed an order under Section 14B of the Act on 31.05.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the establishment filed an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Act. The Tribunal passed orders against the Organisation, following which the Central Board of Trustees instituted a writ petition before the High Court.
The appellant contended that the Union of India represented by the Central Board of Trustees was an aggrieved person and therefore entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article 226. It was submitted that the appellant had contested the matter before the Tribunal and was directly affected by the Tribunal’s decision. Reliance was placed on a resolution of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner authorising the Central Board of Trustees to institute, file, conduct, prosecute, and defend civil and criminal proceedings. It was also argued that if the Board were denied the right to challenge Tribunal orders, then decisions of the Tribunal would become final without further judicial scrutiny by the High Court or Supreme Court.
The respondent argued that the Central Board of Trustees or authorities under the Organisation had no authority to maintain a writ petition under Article 226. It was further contended that since the order had originally been passed by an authority under the Act, the same authority could not later claim to be an aggrieved person and challenge its own decision before the High Court.
The High Court considered the rival submissions and held that if the respondent’s argument were accepted, any order of the original authority reversed by the Tribunal would automatically attain finality without scope for further challenge before higher courts. The Court observed that such a position was untenable.
The Court referred to Section 5-C of the Employees Provident Fund Act, which provides that the Board of Trustees is a body corporate having perpetual succession and capable of suing and being sued. The Court also noted that resolutions had been passed authorising Regional Provident Fund Commissioners and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners to institute, defend, prosecute, and conduct civil and criminal proceedings on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees before courts and tribunals.
The High Court held that approaching the High Court under Article 226 is a constitutional right available to an aggrieved person and such right cannot be denied merely because the original authority had passed the order under challenge. The Court observed that the power of judicial review under Article 226 cannot be curtailed on the ground that the original authority itself has filed the writ petition.
Since the writ court had only decided the issue regarding maintainability and authority of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and had not examined the merits of the dispute, the High Court declined to deal with the merits of the matter. The impugned writ order dated 25.02.2025 was set aside, the writ petition was restored to file, and the writ court was directed to decide the matter on merits expeditiously.
Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By consent of both parties, the writ appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been instituted under Clause 15 of Letters Patent by the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund, Rep. by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, challenging the order of the writ Court holding that the Board of Trustees, has no authority to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Uncontroverted facts between the parties would show that the competent authority under the Employees Provident Fund passed an order under Section 14B of the Act on 31.05.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, Establishment preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal under Section 7-I of the Act and passed final orders. Since the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal decided the issues against the Organisation, the writ petition has been instituted by the Central Board of Trustees.
4. Mr. C. Kulanthaivel, learned Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that Union of India represented by the Central Board of Trustees is an aggrieved person and therefore, entitled to maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is a party respondent before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and contested the case on merits. Thus, the appellant is an aggrieved person for the purpose of maintaining a writ petition. Regarding the authority of the Central Board of Trustees, the learned Panel Counsel would rely on the resolution of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, authorising the Central Board of Trustees to institute / file, conduct, prosecute and defend civil and criminal cases etc. That apart, he would submit that assuming that the Central Board of Trustee is not an authority to maintain a writ petition under Article 226, then for all purposes, the order of the Tribunal will become final and the Department may not be in a position to ventilate their grievances and settle the issues before the High Court and the Supreme Court. Thus, the very proposition held by the writ Court is running counter to the established principle of law, infringing the basic right of an aggrieved person, to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. On behalf of the respondent it is stated that there are judgments to show that the Central Board of Trustees or any other authority under the Organisation has no authority to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the order has been passed by the authority under the Act. Therefore, they cannot be construed as an aggrieved person and more so, they cannot challenge their own decision before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.
7. Though in the present cases, appellate authority has passed an order on enquiry under Section 14B of the Act, it cannot be said that in the event of the said order is reversed by the Appellate Tribunal, no further challenge could be made before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the said argument is accepted, in all cases, in the event of the order of the Original Authority is reversed on appeal by the Tribunal, the same would necessarily become final, without any further challenge before any other Forum or before the High Court or Supreme Court.
8. That apart, Section 5-C of the Employees Provident Fund Act stipulates Board of Trustees to be Body Corporate. Accordingly, every Board of Trust is constituted under Sections 5-A, 5-B shall be a body corporate under the name specified in the notification constituting it, having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued. In exercise of the powers conferred under the Act, resolution was passed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner authorising the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to institute, file, conduct, prosecute and defend all Civil and Criminal cases, whether original appellate or revisional, instituted or launched by or against the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund and/or Central Provident Fund Commissioner and/or any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to act and appear in all the aforesaid proceedings for and on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees, Central Provident Fund Commissioner, or as the case may be, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, to conduct and prosecute the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of any application connected with the same or any decree or order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and applications for review, to file and obtain return of the Central Board of Trustees, Central Provident Fund Commissioner or as the case may be, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in all petitions and in applications for review and to represent them jointly or singularly and to take all necessary steps on behalf of them in all matters in case of need, to engage, appoint and instruct pleaders, advocates, barristers and attorneys to file and take back documents from courts, administrative tribunal and all Tribunals, authorities to withdraw from or abandon wholly or partly the suit/appeals/revision/claim/ defence/ proceedings against all or any defendants/respondents/ appellants/ plaintiffs/ opposite parties, to enter into any agreement, settlement or compromise whereby the suit/ appeal proceedings is/are wholly or partly adjusted to refer all or any matter or matters arising or in dispute therein, to arbitration to withdraw or deposit any money for and on behalf of the Central of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund from or in any court or before any officer or authority and generally to do all that is necessary and proper for the aforesaid purpose including assigning and verifying pleadings, petitions, applications, appeals and complaints.
9. Approaching the High Court by an aggrieved person under Article 226 is the basic right, which cannot be denied. It is a constitutional right conferred and therefore, whether a State or Union of India or an authority authorised by the State or Union of India, has the authority to approach the High Court, challenging any decision of the Tribunal or the Courts. In the event of accepting the arguments as advanced on behalf of the respondents as rightly contended by the learned Panel Counsel, the order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Act will become final and all further adjudications will be stopped forthwith and such a scenario would defeat the basic right of an aggrieved person to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Though the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in his official capacity passed an original Order under Section 14B of the Act, he has been authorised by the Central Board of Commissioner to institute and defend civil and criminal cases before the Courts, Tribunal etc. The power of judicial review under Article 226 empowers the High Court to decide the issues on merits in respect of the person instituting a writ petition challenging an order passed by the authority or a decision taken or otherwise. Such a power conferred to the High Court under Article 226, cannot be curtailed nor be taken away merely on the ground that the original authority, who passed an order, filed a writ petition before the High Court.
11. This Court is not inclined to deal with the merits, since the writ order impugned would show that the authority of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Central Board of Trustees to maintain a writ petition alone is decided. Therefore, this Court has no option, but to remand the matter to the writ Court for adjudication of issues and merits raised between the parties in the writ petitions.
12. Accordingly, the impugned writ order dated 25.02.2025 in W.P.No.33678 of 2019 is set aside. The Writ Petition is restored to its file. The Writ Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition on merits as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13. Registry is directed to circulate a copy of the judgement delivered in Central Board of Trustees Vs. M/s. Tirupur Textiles Ltd., [2026:MHC:1471] (W.A.No.836 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.8713 of 2026) to the Hon’ble Judges holding the roster for Labour Laws and Provident Fund cases.
Author Bio
