Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
Devarajan Vijaya Rep.by its Sole Propreitor D.Vijaya – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commsissioner II (C and R) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office – Respondent
WA No. 1025 of 2026 | W.P.No. 25261 of 2024 | EPFA.No.122 of 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Thangaraju
For the Respondents: R.Thirunavukarasu

The mandatory pre-deposit requirement cannot be circumvented by filing a writ petition, and reduction of the deposit constitutes a concession that precludes further relief.

Headnote:(A) Letters Patent - Clause 15 - Writ appeal against order in writ petition - Pre-deposit requirement for statutory appeal under the Act - Mandatory deposit of seventy five percent of amount ordered.

(B) Pre-deposit - Statutory requirement cannot be circumvented by filing writ petition - Reduction from seventy five percent to thirty five percent by authority constitutes a concession - Writ court justified in rejection.

Facts of the case:
To challenge the tribunal order the appellant preferred statutory appeal but filed writ petition to avoid precondition of depositing seventy five percent of the amount ordered by original authority. The writ court found attempt to circumvent pre-deposit payment.

Findings of Court:
The mandatory requirement of pre-deposit contemplated under the Act cannot be dispensed with. Reduction to thirty five percent itself being concession extended, the writ court is right in rejecting the petition.

Issues: Whether the mandatory pre-deposit can be dispensed with by approaching writ court instead of pursuing statutory appeal and whether rejection of such petition was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The requirement being mandatory under the Act it cannot be avoided through writ proceedings. Extension of concession through reduction to thirty five percent precludes further indulgence. Result : Writ appeal dismissed. No costs.

Table of Content
1. statutory precondition of 75% pre-deposit for epf appeal (Para 1 , 2)
2. mandatory pre-deposit cannot be circumvented or dispensed with (Para 3 , 4)
3. writ appeal dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit (Para 5)

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present writ appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 03.09.2024 in W.P.No.25261 of 2024.

2. Challenging the order passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal, Chennai in EPFA.No.122 of 2020, appellant preferred a statutory appeal. It is a pre-condition that the person preferring an appeal should deposit 75% of the amount ordered by the original authority.

3. In the present case, Writ Court found that in order to circumvent the payment of pre-deposit, the writ petition came to be filed.

4. Since it is a mandatory requirement contemplated under the Act, the same cannot be dispensed with. Pertinently, the Labour Court in exercise of its discretion reduced the pre-deposit from 75% to 35%. That itself is a concession extended to the appellant. Therefore, the Writ Court is right in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant.

5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document