IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.3656 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.3683 and 3684 of 2017 The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Sri Jaya Lakshmi Plaza, Anna Salai, Swarnapuri, Salem-636 004. ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minar Core-II, 4th Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092.

2.M/s.Mettur Spinning Mills Private Limited, Post Box No.2, Mettur Dam, Salem-636 014, Represented by its Managing Director. ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 05.08.2013 in A.T.A.No.364 (13) 2013 and quash the order passed therein.

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Meenakshi For Respondents : R1-Tribunal R2-Unserved

O R D E R

Assailing the order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in and by which the order passed by the petitioner has been set aside, wherein the petitioner had directed the respondent to pay the contribution towards PF in respect of the allowances for which PF was not deducted and deposited, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that similar issue has been raised in a batch of petitions in W.P.Nos.26413 of 2017, etc. Batch and this Court, vide order dated 04.08.2023 had allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the order passed by the original authority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly concedes with the same.

3. This Court perused the order passed in W.P.Nos.26413 of 2017, etc. Batch, wherein, this Court has held as under :-

“25. A conjoint reading of Sections 7-I and 7-L shows that an appeal to the Tribunal could be filed only by the person aggrieved by the order of the authority or the Central Government and it cannot be by an authority, even higher in hierarchy to the authority, who had passed the order in the absence of any authorisation by the Central Government. Further, for the purpose of determination of moneys to be recovered, the inquiry by the authority is deemed to be a judicial proceeding as is passed by a civil court. In effect, the order passed by the authority, is a judicial order passed exercising quasi-judicial power.

26. Further, as evidenced above, sub-section (4) of Section 7-L makes the order passed by the Tribunal a finality, which could not be questioned in any court of law. True it is that the order of the Tribunal can be put in issue before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as this Court exercises extraordinary jurisdiction. However, the only interpretation that could be given harmoniously to sub-section (4) of Section 7-L is that the authority, who had passed the order, being an authority lower in hierarchy to the Tribunal, is bound to accept the order passed by the Tribunal and is estopped from questioning the said order by filing appeal, except where the order passed is without jurisdiction and that too only if the authority has proper authorisation from the Central Government.

27. However, the other party to the lis, viz., the individual, cannot be estopped from taking the same on appeal before a higher judicial forum. Meaning thereby, the order passed by the Tribunal in an appeal by the employer, could at best be challenged only by the employer, if it is against the employer and the authority, who passed the original order is bound to act on the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal as the Tribunal is the final arbiter under the statute insofar as the authority is concerned. Further, it should be pointed out that the order passed by the original authority merges with the appellate order and the original authority is bound by the order passed by the appellate authority. Any other construction, if gi