Madras High Court
WA/2819/2026 of Tamil Nadu Grama bank Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II on 23 September 2026
WA No. 2819 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
WA No. 2819 of 2026
and C.M.P.No.24877 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011465832026}
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Head Office,
6 Yercaud Road, Hasthampatti,
Salem 636 008,
Rep. by its General Manager
..Appellant(s)
Vs
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II
EPF Organization,
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Lady Doak College Road, Madurai-625 002.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order 04.06.2026 made in WP.No.33961 of 2023.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.K.Thiyageshvaran
For Respondent(s):
MRS.R.MEENAKSHI, STANDING COUNEL
FOR RESPONDENTS.
WA No. 2819 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.) This Writ Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.33961 of 2023.
2. It is seen from the records that the writ petitioner has filed a Review Petition against the damages that were imposed for delayed Provident Fund Contributors and the same was rejected by the respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.06.2026 dismissed the writ petition by observing that the order passed under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, has to be appealed before the Tribunal and granted liberty to the writ petitioner to appeal before the Central Industrial Tribunal. Against the said order of dismissal, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner would submit that as the Tribunal was not functioning and further an order of stay has also been granted, the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, without considering the same, dismissed the writ petition and hence the same requires interference.
WA No. 2819 of 2026
4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Tribunal was functioning and there is no record to show that the Tribunal was not functioning at the time of filing the writ petition. The writ petitioner ought to have filed the appeal before the Tribunal rather than filing the writ petition.
5. It is appropriate for the writ petitioner to file an appeal before the Central Industrial Tribunal. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the Tribunal is vacant and not functioning. Even assuming that the Tribunal was not functioning, the writ petitioner has not filed the writ petition within the period of limitation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. However, the appellant is at liberty to workout its remedy in the manner known to law.
6. In view of the above, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.V.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No BKN
WA No. 2819 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. BKN WA No. 2819 of 2026 23-09-2026