The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central Board of Trustees, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, did not have the authority to challenge orders of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal without prior leave of the court and that the actions taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were based on a misconception of law and procedure.

1. These writ petitions are directed against different orders of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) on diverse dates, which the provident fund authorities have challenged in these writ petitions. They have been filed by the Central Board, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization. In course of hearing, a preliminary point was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition primarily on various points.

2. Since a common point of maintainability arose in respect of all the writ petitions, the issue is being disposed of by a common judgment and order. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, the learned Senior Counsel has made submissions on behalf of the establishments and Mr. Pal, the learned Senior Advocate submitted for the petitioner.

3. There has been a serious issue agitated that since there is no body or authority by the name of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization in the statute, it cannot have any Central Board of Trustees. Secondly, filing a writ petition or challenging an order of the Tribunal falls outside the purview of the powers and functioning of the Central Board of Trustees. Therefore, these writ petitions at their instance are not plainly maintainable. The power of delegation by the Central Board of Trustees cannot be used for challenging an order of the Tribunal. Lastly, the maintainability of these petitions was challenged on the ground that the Central Board of Trustees not being a party to the earlier stages of the proceedings, it cannot figure as a writ petitioner without first obtaining leave of this Court.

4. Mr. Pal had submitted that if Section 5E is read with Section 5D (iii) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (the Act, for short) no man shall hold that the Central Board of Trustees cannot delegate its power to any of the officers to discharge the same functions as a delegator. The Central Board of Trustees consists of 43 members having their respective offices throughout the country. Therefore, the legislature evolved a procedure by which the actions can be taken on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees by its delegate viz., Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and this has exactly been done in the present case.

5. The petitioner submits that if the Act is read as a whole, it will be obvious that the Central Board’s works are to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Act. The mention of different rates in the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme (the Scheme, for short) brings out the consequences of not observing the statutory provisions. The classic example of the consequences which would follow is damages and interest. According to him, the argument that damages and interest do not form part of the Fund as contemplated under the statute is wholly without justification. Mr. Pal is not so much on the Vokalatnama filed as it can be rectified at any moment. This cannot invalidate the entire proceedings; this was a technical flaw which can be rectified.

6. Section 14 B of the said Act provides that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officers as may be authorised by the Government, is to recover from the establishment by way of penalty or damages. The second proviso to Section 14B makes a distinction between the Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Central Board of Trustees which is a superior authority to waive or reduce the damages. Therefore, the Central Board is authorised to consider and administer the various schemes under the Act. The identity of the Board has further been spelt out in Section 5C of the Act with the power to sue or be sued. This is a plenary power without any limitation. Mr. Pal has expanded his submission that an order which reduces the damages imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or other officers entitles the Central Board or its delegates to take action including a legal one for efficient administration of the Fund and the Scheme framed there under which includ