High Court · 2025

W.P.No.725 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.725 of 2025and W.M.P.No.882 of 2025Hannon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd.,Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post,Maraimalai Nagar,Chengalpattu – 603 204.Rep by its General Manager....Petitioner-Vs-The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I,Employees Provident Fund Organization,Regional Office Tambaram,3, Rajaji Salai, Tambaram,Chennai – 600 045.... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to confine a scope of enquiry under Section 7B of the EPF Act to the issues raised by the petitioner and covered in the order dated 08.07.2021 passed under Section 7A of the Act, 1952, in proceedings No.TB/TAM/39867/ ENF/CC-II/527/Proceedings/2021. For Petitioner: Mr. G.Anand Gopalan For M/s.AGAM LegalFor Respondent: Mr.R.ThirunavukarasuPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.725 of 2025ORDERThis writ petition is filed for mandamus directing the respondents to confine the scope of enquiry under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to the issues raised by the petitioner and covered in the order dated 08.07.2021, passed under Section 7A of the Act. 2.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that an order under section 7A of the Act was passed on 08.07.2021, thereby determaining the dues from the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,11,86,047/-. The petitioner was aggrieved of the same and therefore he had filed an application under Section 7B of the Act to review the same. When the enquiry for the review filed under Section 7B of the Act was pending, it is the grievance of the petitioner that, the reviewing authority is enlarging the scope of the review by directing the management to produce certain documents so as to go beyond the scope of the original 7A order itself.3.He would submit that even when the petitioner has brought to the notice of the authority by its reply that in the 7B enquiry such particulars cannot be called for, still by repeated communication including communication Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.725 of 2025dated 02.07.2024, new documents are directed to be produced. That goes to show that the Authority is not considering the submissions made by the petitioner management. In respect of the very same officer, who is now functioning at Tambaram, in yet another matter, the management had approached, this Court by way of Writ Petition No.8447 of 2024 and by an order dated 27.08.2024, this Court allowed the writ petition by holding that in the enquiry under Section 7B of the Act, the scope of the original order cannot be enlarged. Even if any further amount has to be levied, that has to be done only by way of separate supplementary proceedings, by giving due opportunity to the management and in the review application filed by the management, the scope cannot be enlarged. Inview there of, the writ petition as prayed for has been allowed by this Court.4.Taking notice at the stage of admission, Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the Provident Fund Organization would submit that Section 13 of the Act, empowers the authorities to ask for the particulars which are mentioned in the communication. The Authority has not passed any order whatsoever. When no order at all has been passed, the present writ petition is filed only to interdict in the proceedings and it cannot be Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.725 of 2025entertained by this Court. Even the judgment of this Court, which is passed earlier can be brought to the notice of the appropriate authority and the same can be considered by the authority in the enquiry and at this stage this writ petition need not be entertained. As a matter of fact, the facts and circumstances of the order in W.P.No.8447 of 2024 are different and may not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.6.On a perusal of the order of this Court made in W.P.No.8447 of 2024, this Court speaking through Hon'ble Ms. Justice R.N.Manjula, has considered Section 7B of the Act and has held that Section 7B of the Act has powers both to take a suo motu review of its own orders and also consider the review filed by the concerned management. The Court has held that even if the authority, feels that some amounts have been left out in the earlier assessment, it can very well independently initiate suo motu review under Section 7B of the Act and the same need not be mixed up with the review which is filed by the concerned management.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.725 of 20257.Therefore, as far as the present proceedings is concerned, it can be seen from the records that the reference bearing number No.TN/TAM/39867/ EO/Div-5277/7B/2023, is the review which is filed by the management under Section 7B of the Act, aggrieved by the earlier assessment under section 7A of the Act, is being taken up by the appropriate authority. Therefore, it would be open for the petitioner management to place the said order of this Court also before the same authority and contend that the present scope of the enquiry should be restricted to the earlier order. The learned counsel submits that already the same has been brought to the notice of the authority. 8.Be that as it may, no final orders have been passed with reference to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of the Act. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot interdict into the enquiry. It would be open for the respondent authority to conclude the enquiry. However, the authority should also consider the submissions made by the management, with reference to the scope of enquiry in the petition filed under Section 7B of the Act, by the management and the authority should consider the Orders relied upon by the management. Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.725 of 20259.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.09.01.2025Neutral Citation : Yes/NortsPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.725 of 2025ToThe Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I,Employees Provident Fund Organization,Regional Office Tambaram,3, Rajaji Salai, Tambaram,Chennai – 600 045.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.725 of 2025D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY . J, rtsW.P.No.725 of 2025and W.M.P.No.882 of 202509.01.2025Page 8 of 8