Back
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
| 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 di
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
