SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
Parveen Travels P Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 Employees Provident fund organisation – Respondent
WP No. 8630 of 2026 | WMP.No.9304 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.H.A.Lamech
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Venkatesan

Judicial discretion to allow alternate remedies under statutory provisions while excluding limitation periods.

Headnote:The judgment addresses a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order by the respondent under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, specifically under Section 7A for determining employee dues. The petitioner sought to quash this order and submit a review petition, which was rejected. The court found that the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy under Section 7-I of the Act and permitted the filing of an appeal while excluding the limitation period. The petition was therefore disposed of.

Table of Content
1. challenging orders under statutory provisions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's right to pursue alternate remedies. (Para 3)
3. court's guidance on filing appeals. (Para 4 , 5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 8630 of 2026 and WMP.No.9304 of 2026

1. Parveen Travels P Ltd AB Towers No.148, Perambur Barracks Petitioner(s)

Road Purasawalkam chennai-600 007 and is represented by its Managing Director Afzal s/o.Allah Baksh Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 Employees Provident fund organisation Regional office Chennai(North)

Royapettah High Road Chennai-600

014 Respondent(s) PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent dated 9.2.2026 in CHN/TNMAS0050550000/Comp/DIV 28/Regl/2026 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to take up the above Review petition his file.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.H.A.Lamech For Respondent: Mr.K.Venkatesan

ORDER

Challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 9.2.2026 in CHN/TNMAS0050550000/Comp/DIV 28/Regl/2026, quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to take up the above Review petition his file.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent initiated the proceedings as against the petitioner under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and passed an order under Section 7A of the Act by determining the amount due to the employees. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed a review petition under Section 7B of the Act, the same was rejected vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner preferred a review petition, however, the same was not entertained. However, now, the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 7-A of the Act and the period of limitation may be excluded from the date of order under Section 7-A of the Act, viz., 05.11.2025 and till date.

4. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there is an effective alternate remedy available for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Act, the petitioner shall file an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act and though there is a delay in filing the appeal from the date of order under Section 7-A of the Act, viz., 05.11.2025 and till date, the period is excluded for the purpose of limitation. In such view of the matter, the petitioner shall file an appeal within a week from today under Section 7-I of the Act and the appellate authority shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks thereafter.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top