Central Board of Trustees is an "aggrieved person" entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article 226.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) issued an order under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act against the respondent establishment on 31.05.2016

The respondent successfully challenged this order before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Act

Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, the Central Board of Trustees filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Writ Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Board of Trustees lacked the authority/standing to maintain a writ petition against a decision reversing its own lower authority's order

The Board subsequently filed this intra-court appeal

1. Whether the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund, is an "aggrieved person" having the legal standing to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal

2. Whether the original authority, having passed the initial order, is barred from seeking judicial review if that order is reversed by an appellate body

Section 5-C of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, which establishes the Board of Trustees as a "Body Corporate" with perpetual succession, authorized to sue and be used in its own name

The constitutional right to judicial review under Article 226, which empowers High Courts to entertain petitions from "aggrieved persons"

Internal resolutions of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner which expressly authorize the RPFC to institute, conduct, and defend civil and criminal proceedings on behalf of the Board

The court reasoned that deny the Board the right to file a writ petition would render the Appellate Tribunal's decisions final and immune to judicial scrutiny, thereby infringing upon the basic right of an aggrieved party to approach the High Court

The court noted that because Section 5-C of the Act grants the Board corporate status, it possesses the legal personality to litigate

the power of judicial review under Article 226 is a constitutional feature that cannot be curtailed simply because the petitioner is the original authority whose order was set aside

The court found that the RPFC, acting on behalf of the Board through authorized resolutions, qualifies as an "aggrieved person" when a statutory tribunal decides against the interests of the Provident Fund organization

The court ruled that the status of the original authority does not preclude them from being an "aggrieved person" entitled to constitutional remedies

The Writ Appeal was allowed, the petition (W.P.No.33678 of 2019) was restored to the file, and the matter was remanded to the Writ Court for adjudication on merits