Synopsis

The Central Board of Trustees, EPF, through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order. The single judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, holding that the authority (Regional PF Commissioner) lacked locus standi to approach the High Court. In appeal, the division bench set aside the order and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits. The court held that the Regional PF Commissioner is duly authorized by the Central Board to institute legal proceedings, and that the constitutional right to approach the High Court under Article 226 cannot be curtailed merely because the original order was passed by the same authority. The writ petition was restored to the file of the single judge for a decision on merits.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Surender (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 28th April 2026

Citation: 2026:MHC:1747

Core Law: Constitutional Law – Article 226 (Writ jurisdiction); Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Section 14B, Section 7-I); Locus standi of statutory authorities.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at madras

Writ appeal no. 1002 of 2026

The central board of trustees employees provident fund (appellant) vs. M/s teknoturf info services pvt ltd (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice s. m. subramaniam and hon’ble mr. justice k. surender

Date: 28th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (power of high courts to issue writs)

• Employees’ provident funds and miscellaneous prov

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.