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.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam J.

The present intra Court appeals have been instituted under Clause 15 of Letters Patent by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, challenging the order of the writ Court holding that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, has no authority to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Uncontroverted facts between the parties would show that the competent authority under the Employees Provident Fund passed an order under Section 7-A of the Act on 22.06.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, Establishment preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal under Section 7-I of the Act and passed final orders. Since the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal decided the issues against the Organisation, the writ petitions have been instituted by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that Union of India represented by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is an aggrieved person and therefore, entitled to maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is a party respondent before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and contested the case on merits. Thus, the appellant is an aggrieved person for the purpose of maintaining a writ petition. Regarding the authority of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India would rely on the resolution of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, authorising the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) to institute / file, conduct, prosecute and defend civil and criminal cases etc. That apart, he would submit that assuming that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is not an authority to maintain a writ petition under Article 226, then for all purposes, the order of the Tribunal will become final and the Department may not be in a position to ventilate their grievances and settle the issues before the High Court and the Supreme Court. Thus, the very proposition held by the writ Court is running counter to the established principle of law, infringing the basic right of an aggrieved person, to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that there are judgments to show that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner or any other authority under the Organisation has no authority to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the order has been passed by the authority under the Act. Therefore, they cannot be construed as an aggrieved person and more so, they cannot challenge their own decision before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

6. Though in the present cases, appellate authority has passed an order on enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act, it cannot be said that in the event of the said order is reversed by the Appellate Tribunal, no further challenge could be made before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the said arguments is accepted, in all cases, in the event of the order of the Original Authority is reversed on appeal by the Tribunal, the same would necessarily become final, without any further challenge before any other Forum or before the High Court or Supreme Court.

7. That apart, Section