Madras High Court
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs M/S.Seyadu Beedi Company on 4 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.1089 OF 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.1089 of 2018 & 32 of 2019
AND C.M.P.(MD)No.9056 of 2024
W.A.(MD)No.1089 of 2018
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
N.G.O.B.Colony,
Tirunelveli. ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1. M/s.Seyadu Beedi Company,
Salai Street,
Sindupoondurai,
Tirunelveli Junction,
Tirunelveli – 627 001.
2. The Presiding Officer,
E.P.F.Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi. ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
to call for the records relating to the order dated 23.06.2017 passed
by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3822 of 2009 on the file of this Court
and set aside the same and allow the writ appeal as prayed for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
2 W.A.(MD)NO.1089 OF 2018
For Appellant : Mr.K.Muralisankar
For R-1 : Mr.P.Chandrabose
For R-2 : Mr.S.Arunachalam
***
W.A.(MD)No.32 of 2019
District Beedi Workers' Union,
Rep. By its President,
6-A-1, Parasakthi Building,
Madurai Road,
Tirunelveli – 627 001. ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Presiding Officer,
E.P.F.Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi.
2. M/s.Seyadu Beedi Company,
Salai Street,
Sindupoondurai,
Tirunelvlei Junction,
Tirunelveli – 627 001.
3. The Regional Provident fund Commissioner,
N.G.O.B.Colony,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
to set aside the order of the learned Judge dated 23.06.2017 in W.P.
(MD)No.11733 of 2010 and allow the writ petition as prayed for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/10
3 W.A.(MD)NO.1089 OF 2018
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunachalam
For R-2 : Mr.P.Chandrabose
For R-3 : Mr.K.Muralishankar
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Both these writ appeals arise out of the order dated 23.06.2017
made in W.P.(MD)Nos.3822 of 2009 and W.P.(MD)No.11733 of
2010. W.P.(MD)No.3822 of 2009 was filed by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Tirunelveli. W.P.(MD)No.11733 of 2010 was filed by
the District Beedi Workers' Union, rep. by its President, Tirunelveli.
2. In both the writ petitions, the order dated 25.03.2009 passed
by the E.P.F.Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No.68C(13)
2003 was questioned. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by the
learned single Judge. Challenging the same, the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, Tirunelveli filed W.A.(MD)No.1089 of 2018.
The District Beedi Workers Union, Tirunelveli filed W.A.(MD)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.32 of 2019. Shri.M.Rajangam, President of the District Beedi
Workers Union, Tirunelveli submitted complaint dated 16.07.2001
before the Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Tirunelveli
alleging that certain workers employed by M/s.Seyadu Beedi
Company, Sindupoondurai, Tirunelveli have not been enrolled as
members in EPFO. Para 26-B of the Employees' Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 reads as follows:-
“Resolution of doubts – If any question arises
whether an employee is entitled or required to become
or continue as a member, or as regards the date from
which he is so entitled or required to become a member,
the decision thereon of the Regional Commissioner
shall be final.”
3. Since the authority was obliged to hear the alleged
employer, notice was issued to M/s.Seyadu Beedi Company also.
The said Beedi Company took the stand that the so called
non-enrolled members are actually self-employed and independent
Beedi rollers. One Syed Ahamed used to supply raw materials to
them and after rolling Beedies, the said persons sold the same to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M/s.Rajan Traders. Seyadu Beedi Company is only a purchaser of
Beedies from Rajan Traders. The said company has nothing to do or
relationship with the persons for whom the complaint was lodged by
the District Beedi Workers Union. After conducting a detailed
enquiry, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide order
dated 01.07.2003 decided that the so called self-employed Beedi
manufacturers ultimately supplied the beedies in whatever terms to
Seyadu Beedi Company through Rajan Traders or similar firms or
agencies are employees of M/s.Seyadu Beedi Company and they are
eligible to be enrolled as E.P.F.members.
4. Since adjudication had already been made in Para 26-B of
Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 against an establishment,
an order under Section 7A of the EPF&MP Act was passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Tirunelveli on 17.08.2004.
The said authority determined that a sum of Rs.2,09,23,923/-
was payable as contribution under Section 7A of the Act. Aggrieved
by the order made under para 26-B, on 01.07.2003, the
establishment (Seyadu Beedi Company) filed ATA No.680(13)2003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New
Delhi.
5. Feeling aggrieved that this appeal was not being processed,
the establishment filed W.P.(MD)No.1166 of 2004 before the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. In the said writ petition, the
establishment questioned not only the adjudication made under Para
26-B dated 01.07.2003 but also the consequential order passed under
Section 7A of the EPF&MP Act dated 17.08.2004. The
establishment sought quashing of both the orders. The said writ
petition was disposed of by directing the Tribunal to take up the
appeal and give a disposal within three months after giving notice to
both the parties and also on merits. Paragraph 6 of the said order
reads as follows:-
“6. Under these circumstances, ends of justice
will be met if the following directions are given:- (a)
The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order to the credit of the appeal
No.TN/TI/ATA No.680(13)2003/legal/2007. (b) Once
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deposit is made and intimated to Tribunal by a written
communication of both the parties, the Tribunal shall
take up the Appeal in TN-TI-ATA No.
680(13)2003/legal/2007 and dispose of the same on
merits within a period of three months after giving
notice to both the parties and also on merits without
insisting any pre-deposit. The Tribunal shall report
compliance to this Court. The writ petition will stand
disposed of accordingly. No costs.”
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Tribunal took up the
appeal filed by the establishment and allowed the same on
25.03.2009. Challenging the same, the writ petitions were filed by
the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as the District
Beedi Workers Union. As already mentioned, both the writ petitions
were dismissed by the learned single Judge on 23.06.2017.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that as
per the unamended provision, any adjudication made by the
authority under Para 26-B of the Scheme was final. It is true that a
finality clause cannot bind the civil Court or the writ Court. But
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
then, the appellate Tribunal is creature of the very same status which
had incorporated the finality clause. The Tribunal should not have
gone into the correctness of the order made under Para 26-B of the
Scheme.
8. Even though the appellants herein / writ petitioners argued
before the learned single Judge that the Tribunal was incompetent to
decide this issue, the learned single Judge brushed aside and rejected
the said argument on the ground that this Court in W.P.(MD)No.
1166 of 2004 had specifically directed the Tribunal to dispose of the
appeal and therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that the appeal
before the Tribunal was not legally maintainable.
9. With utmost respect to the learned single Judge, we have to
observe that if the Tribunal was otherwise incompetent to decide the
appeal, then the writ Court cannot confer jurisdiction by giving
direction to dispose of the appeal.
10. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned
single Judge is set aside. The order passed by the Tribunal which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was impugned in W.P.(MD)Nos.3822 of 2009 and 11733 of 2010 is
also set aside.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
establishment, the establishment cannot be left without remedy. They
have been contesting the case right from the inception. Hence, in the
interest of justice we grant liberty to the first respondent to mount a
fresh challenge not only to the order dated 01.07.2003 made under
Para 26B of the Scheme but also the order dated 17.08.2004 made
under Section 7A of the Act. If any such challenge is mounted within
a period of next two months, it will be entertained without reference
to limitation or laches. The contention of both the parties are left
open. These writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
4th February 2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
PMU
W.A.(MD)Nos.1089 of 2018 & 32 of 2019
04.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
