The Central Board of Trustees, vs M/s.Poppys Knitwear Pvt Ltd
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:1730
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.10533 of 2026
The Central Board of Trustees
Employees Provident Fund
Rep. By Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II
Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, P.B.No.3875
Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Appellant
vs.
M/s.Poppys Knitwear Pvt. Ltd.,
33, MP Nagar, Kongunagar Extension
Tirupur – 641 607. … Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 25.02.2025 made in W.P.No.33678 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
Panel Counsel for EPFO
For Respondent : Mr.R.Jaya Prakash
*
Page Nos.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
J U D G M E N T
[Made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]
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
Page Nos.2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
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
Page Nos.3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
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
Page Nos.4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
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
Page Nos.5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
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.
Page Nos.6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
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 em powers 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,
Page Nos.7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
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
Page Nos.8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
the Hon’ble Judges holding the roster for Labour Laws and Provident Fund
cases.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
29.04.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order
mk
To
The Registrar (Judicial)
High Court,
Madras.
Page Nos.9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,
and
K. SURENDER, J.,
mk
W.A.No.1033 of 2026
29.04.2026
Page Nos.10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/05/2026 02:21:16 pm )