Madras High Court
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs The Presiding Officer on 4 July, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025
W.A(MD)No.1744 of 2025:
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office,
No.1, Lady Doak Road,
Chokkikulam,
Madurai – 625 002. ... Appellant /
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
The Employees' Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi.
2.M/s.Ambika Cotton Mills (P) Limited, Unit – I,
Natham Main Road,
Kaniyapuram Post,
Dindigul – 624 308,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents /
Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 04:21:28 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this
Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the writ Court in W.P(MD)No.
1365 of 2013 dated 30.11.2022.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam for R.2
W.A(MD)No.1745 of 2025:
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office,
No.1, Lady Doak Road,
Chokkikulam,
Madurai – 625 002. ... Appellant /
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
The Employees' Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi.
2.M/s.Ambika Cotton Mills (P) Limited, Unit – I,
Natham Main Road,
Kaniyapuram Post,
Dindigul – 624 308,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents /
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this
Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the writ Court in W.P(MD)No.
1366 of 2013 dated 30.11.2022.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 04:21:28 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.P.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam for R.2
W.A(MD)No.1746 of 2025:
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office,
No.1, Lady Doak Road,
Chokkikulam,
Madurai – 625 002. ... Appellant /
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
The Employees' Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi.
2.M/s.Ambika Cotton Mills (P) Limited, Unit – I,
Natham Main Road,
Kaniyapuram Post,
Dindigul – 624 308,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents /
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this
Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the writ Court in W.P(MD)No.
1367 of 2013 dated 30.11.2022.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam for R.2
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 04:21:28 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.
2.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chokkikulam, Madurai is the appellant in all these 3 writ appeals. The assessment order was made against Ambika Cotton Mills Private Limited by the appellant here quantifying the contribution payable by them under Section 7(A) of the Act. According to the appellant, the assessee had fraudulently suppressed the actual number of regular employees and had shown them as apprentices. Orders under Section 7(A) were passed. Questioning the same, the Management filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide orders dated 05.01.2012 set aside the order of the Provident Fund authority. Challenging the Tribunal's orders, EPFO filed writ petitions. The learned single Judge vide order dated 30.11.2022 dismissed the writ petition in the following terms:
“4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has elaborately submitted that the second respondent establishment has passed standing orders for appointing apprentices. Under clause (f) of the standing orders, it has been stated as under:4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 04:21:28 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025
f) An ''APPRENTICE'' is a learner who is given stipend during the period of his learnings which shall be of three years period. He is entitled to a certificate after the successful completion of his learning and he will have no right for employment in the mills.
5. The issue of appointing apprentices was agitated before the Special Industrial Tribunal and based on the orders, the Government also issued notification in the gazette. The three units of the second respondent were included in the Gazette dated 20.09.2004. The second respondent also submitted that the apprentices will be paid stipend and they are not entitled to regular employment, after completion of apprentice trainee. With this condition, the apprentices will be engaged.
6. When the issue was settled by filing joint memo accepting the appointment of apprentice before the Special Industrial Tribunal and further the Government has issued Gazette Notification dated 20.09.2004 to this effect. After perusing the records, it is seen that in the joint memo it has been accepted the appointment of apprentice and the terms of training is for three years and other conditions are also imposed. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is legally sustainable. The Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed by the EPF Organization. The EPF organization has not raised any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.” Challenging the same, these writ appeals have been filed.
5/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 04:21:28 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025
3.The question in this case turns purely on facts. According to the Management, the persons indicated by the appellant are actually their apprentices. According to the appellant, they are not apprentices but regular employees who ought to have been enrolled with EPFO. It is the Tribunal as a regular appellate authority that can go into these factual aspects. The Tribunal has found in favour of the Management and against the EPFO. The learned single Judge has also concurred with the view taken by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, without going into the maintainability of the writ petitions as canvassed by the learned counsel for the Management, we are of the view that in exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause 15 Letters Patent, interference is not warranted. In the very nature of things, judicial review is restricted in such cases and more so at the stage of appeal before the Division Bench.
4.These Writ Appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
04.07.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
MGA
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 04:21:28 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
The Employees' Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi.
2.M/s.Ambika Cotton Mills (P) Limited, Unit – I, Natham Main Road, Kaniyapuram Post, Dindigul – 624 308, Dindigul District.
7/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 04:21:28 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J and K.RAJASEKAR, J.
MGA W.A(MD)Nos.1744 to 1746 of 2025 04.07.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 04:21:28 pm )