A quasi-judicial authority cannot challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal without specific authorization.

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed by a school challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02.07.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 14810 of 2015. Appellant school was the 1^st respondent in the W.P.(C). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent respectively in the W.P.(C ).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the 1^st respondent, Employees'

Provident Fund organisation, challenging Ext.P1 order dated 19.08.2014 rendered by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by the appellant school and had set aside the orders dated 15.01.2013 and 26.06.2013 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC), Calicut under Sections 7A and 7 B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act), determining the Provident Fund (PF) due from the appellant school based on the dues reported by the Enforcement Officer.

3. The learned Single Judge had allowed the W.P.(C) and had set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal to the extent it did not direct a remand of the matter back to the competent authority, i.e. the APFC. The learned Single Judge directed the case to be remitted back to the file of the APFC to hold the enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act in accordance with law, and to pass a fresh order within a period of 4 months from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant school has preferred this Writ Appeal.

4. Heard Sri.T.M.Chandran, Advocate for the appellant and Dr.Abraham P.Meachinkara, Advocate, Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the appeal preferred by the 1^st respondent overlooking the settled position of law that a quasi- judicial authority is not competent to challenge the order of the Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that the officer who represented the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation in the W.P.(C) had not been specifically authorised by the competent authority to file the Writ Petition. While the resolution stated APFC (Legal) had been authorised, the petition was filed by the APFC (Compliance Division). It is submitted that Sections 5A and 5B of the EPF Act, stipulate the constitution of the Central Board and the State Board respectively and Section 5C states that every Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and 5B of the Act shall be a body corporate and shall sue and be sued. Section 5D of the Act provides that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner shall be the Chief Executive of the Central Board. Hence, it is contended that the EPFO cannot file a Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the W.P.(C) at the threshold, finding that it is not maintainable. It is further contended that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are contrary to Section 7A of the provisions of the EPF Act, which lays down the name/status of the officers competent to determine the money due from the employer. It is submitted that the working arrangements said to have been put in place in the department cannot be termed as enabling to treat the officers mentioned in of the EPF Act as not quasi-judicial authorities. Further, the relevant proceedings against the appellant school had commenced as early as in the year 2012 for the period from 2009 onwards. Now the appellant is directed to face the enquiry again after a period of 12 years, not because of the fault of the appellant, but because of the fault of the respondent. This, it is submitted, is too onerous on the appellant and is illegal. It is s