Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
Central Board of Trustees Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Baint Goorie Tea Estate & Anr. – Respondents
M.A.T. No.1843 of 2017, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2018 (Old CAN 805 of 2018) (not in file)
Decided On : 24-08-2022
Writ petition - Central Board of Trustees Employees' Provident Fund Organisation - Provident Fund - Held, Consequently writ petitions stand restored to file of Learned Single Bench to be heard and decided on merits and accordance with law - Respondent employers are directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition to writ petitions raising their contentions on merits of matter except ground of maintainability which has been decided in favour of appellant and such affidavit-in-opposition be filed within eight weeks from date of receipt of server copy of this order after serving copies thereof on appellant and appellants are granted four weeks time there from to file reply if any after which Registry is directed to list writ petitions for hearing before appropriate Learned Single Bench - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(T.S. Sivagnanam, J.)
1. This intra-Court appeal by the Central Board of Trustees Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation is directed the against the order dated 1st September, 2017 passed in W.P. No.20256(W) of 2017 by which the writ petition by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that a writ petition at the instance of the Central Board of Trustees Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation is not maintainable.
2. Identical issue was considered by us in a batch of cases, Central Board of Trustees Vs. Registrar, E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal & Anr. reported at 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 1219 : (2022) 2 LLJ 93 and the appeals were allowed and the writ petitions at the instance of the Central Board of Trustees Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation was held to be maintainable. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
3. Thus, by following the above decision, this appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and it is held that the writ petition at the instance of the Central Board of Trustees Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation is maintainable. Consequently, the writ petition stands restored to the file of the Learned Single Bench to be heard and decided on merits and in accordance with law.
4. The respondents are directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition within eight weeks from date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment and order after serving copies thereof on the appellant. The appellant is granted four weeks time therefrom to file reply, if any, after which the Registry is directed to list the writ petition for hearing before the appropriate Learned Single Bench.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
I agree,
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
Board of Trustees as body corporate holds authority to file writ petitions under Article 226 to challenge Appellate Tribunal orders preventing their finality without higher review.
Central Board of Trustees, authorised as body corporate, entitled to file writ under Article 226 challenging tribunal orders as aggrieved party.
The Central Board of Trustees has the authority to challenge Tribunal orders regarding recovery of dues, asserting its status as a body corporate under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act.
The original authority and the Board of Trustees cannot challenge the Tribunal's order without express authorization from the Central Government, affirming the finality of the Tribunal's decisions.
The constitutional right to approach High Court under Article 226 cannot be denied to aggrieved authority. Appellate tribunal orders remain open to further challenge and do not attain finality automa....
The court established that the Central Board of Trustees has the standing to challenge Tribunal orders and that the assessment of PF contributions must be based on actual wages drawn by employees, no....
A government officer authorized under the Employees Provident Fund Act has the right to file a writ petition under Article 226 to challenge decisions despite having issued orders under the Act.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner authorized by central resolution has constitutional right under Article 226 to challenge appellate tribunal's reversal of original order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
