No Green Light, No Go: EFPO’s Writ Dismissed for Skipping Mandatory Sanction

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of “The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Forward Leathers Company, W.P. No. 28054 of 2021 and WMP No. 29631 of 2021” decided on 25.04.2025, has ruled that a writ petition filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), without prior authorisation from the Central Government or the Board of Trustees is not maintainable. 

This judgment affirms that statutory authorities must follow prescribed procedures before approaching courts to challenge quasi-judicial orders

The Dispute That Sparked It All 

In this case, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) that had set aside the PF authority’s direction requiring M/s Forward Leathers Company to pay contributions on certain allowances. 

The EPFO contended that these allowances formed part of “basic wages” and were subject to provident fund deductions. However, the employer successfully contested this claim before the CGIT. 

No Authorisation, No Standing 

The legal misstep that took place was that the EPFO office filed the writ petition without obtaining prior authorisation from neither the Central Government, nor the Board of Trustees, as required under the provisions governing the functioning of the EPFO. The Court stressed that such procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but are rooted in statutory compliance

Precedent That Sealed the Fate 

To reinforce its position, the Court cited its earlier decision in “The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner v. The Presiding Of icer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Anr., W.P. Nos. 24631 to 24633 of 2017”, where it was held that no writ petition can be filed by the EPFO against CGIT orders unless properly authorised. In that case, the Court had also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in “Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate & Anr. (2007) 8 SCC 254”, which emphasised that where a statute mandates prior sanction or approval by a designated authority, any legal action initiated without such sanction is rendered unsustainable. Since no such authorisation was obtained in the present case, the High Court found the writ petition procedurally unsustainable and dismissed it. 

What This Means Going Forward 

This decision is a strong reminder that public authorities must act with procedural integrity, especially when attempting to override quasi-judicial verdicts. For employers and employees alike, it ensures that decisions from tribunals like the CGIT cannot be casually overturned without meeting strict statutory conditions. The ruling reinforces judicial discipline and limits on bureaucratic overreach; principles that lie at the heart of any robust rule of law framework.