Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: para 26b in M/S. Seyadu Beedi Company vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 13 February, 2026Matching Fragments
Challenging the order dated 01.07.2003 passed under Para 26B of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “EPF Scheme” for brevity) read with Section 7A of the Employees’ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 01:01:25 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.1900 and 3279 of 2026 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “EPF Act” for brevity) and the consequent order dated 17.08.2004 passed by the Authority under Section 7A of the EPF Act claiming Rs.2,09,23,293/-, these two writ petitions have been filed by “M/s.Seyadu Beedi Company” (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner Company” for brevity).
5. A complaint dated 16.07.2001 was submitted by the District Beedi Employees Union alleging that provident fund benefits were not being extended to nearly 800 beedi workers engaged by the petitioner company. According to the complaint, the said 800 beedi workers were engaged through M/s. Rajan Traders. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner conducted an enquiry and passed an order dated 01.07.2023, under Para 26B of the EPF Scheme read with Section 7A of the EPF Act. It was held in the order that all the beedi rollers who supplied beedis to M/s. Rajan Traders were, in fact, employees of the petitioner company and were liable to be enrolled as PF members.
6. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, set aside the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The said order of the Appellate Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.3822 of 2009 by the Regional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 01:01:25 pm ) W.P.(MD)Nos.1900 and 3279 of 2026 Provident Fund Authority and the Beedi Workers Union also filed W.P. (MD) No.11733 of 2010 challenging the same order. This Court dismissed both writ petitions, confirming the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Division Bench of this Court held that the Appellate Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Para 26B read with Section 7A of the EPF Act.
9. In view of the finding of the Division Bench that the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the findings of the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order dated 01.07.2003 need not be discussed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty was granted by the Division Bench while disposing of the writ appeals, pursuant to which W.P.(MD) No.1900 of 2026 has been filed. The learned counsel submitted that both the order passed under Para 26B read with Section 7A of the EPF Act and the consequential order dated 17.08.2004 assessing the EPF dues are liable to be set aside.