M/s.Sudarson Chakra Art Crafts vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization

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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
M/s.Sudarson Chakra Art Crafts – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization – Respondent
EPFA 258/2017

Important Points

Failure to issue notice by successor tribunal officer justifies restoration of dismissed appeal for non-wilful absence.

Subject

Labour & Service - 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, petitioner filed appeal before EPF Appellate Tribunal challenging rejection due to absence. Petitioner’s manufacturing unit claimed successor Tribunal officer failed to issue notice post incumbent’s retirement, rendering absence non-wilful, causing monetary hardship. Court found prima facie case established for restoration. Issue framed as whether absence justified restoration absent wilful default. Court reasoned successor officer’s failure to notify constituted sufficient cause, warranting condonation. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; appeal restored.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Karthikeyan
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Sivasubramanian

Table of Content
1. challenge to tribunal's rejection of appeal due to absence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prima facie case made for appeal restoration. (Para 4)
3. appeal restored; no costs ordered. (Para 5)

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order, dated 28.08.2025 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 on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner concern is involving in the manufacturing of daily and monthly calender. 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 dated 28.08.2025 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, CGIT, Chennai, is set aside. The appeal is restored to its file.

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 to costs.