M/s.Sri Aurobindo Mira Matric School vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
M/s.Sri Aurobindo Mira Matric School – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization – Respondent
EPFA 611/2018 | Writ Petition

Important Points

Absence from tribunal hearing due to lack of notice after presiding officer change is not wilful; appeal restored on showing prima facie case and hardship.

Subject

Labour and Employment - Provident Fund

Act Referred

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: S.7-I

Headnote

Under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the petitioner, an educational institution, filed an appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal due to the petitioner's absence following a change in Presiding Officer without notice. The Court found that the absence was not wilful and restoration was necessary to avoid monetary hardship. The issue framed was whether the appeal should be restored given the lack of notice by the successor Presiding Officer. The ratio decidendi holds that absence due to non-issuance of notice after change in presiding officer does not constitute wilful default, warranting restoration where prima facie case and hardship are shown. The writ petition is allowed; impugned order set aside; appeal restored to Tribunal file.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr.C.Karthikeyan
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Sivasubramanian

Table of Content
1. challenge to tribunal rejection of pf appeal due to absence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. non-wilful absence justifies appeal restoration. (Para 4)
3. appeal restored; no costs ordered. (Para 5)

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, CGIT, Chennai, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, came to be rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner is a registered Trust running educational institutions. It is the case of the petitioner that, following the retirement of the incumbent Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, the successor Presiding Officer did not issue notice, and therefore, the petitioner’s absence when the matter was taken up was not wilful. The petitioner further submits that non-restoration of the appeal would result in serious monetary loss and hardship.

4. In the above circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for restoration of the appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, CGIT, Chennai, is set aside. The appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal.

5. The petitioner shall appear before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, CGIT, Chennai, on 20.04.2026 without awaiting any further notice from the Tribunal.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.