Company Appeal must Precede Constitutional Remedy in EPFO Dispute: Karnataka HC dismisses Writ Petition [Read Order]
When a statute prescribes a specific remedy for enforcing a right or challenging a liability, that statutory route must be pursued first
The Karnataka High Court has reinforced the legal principle that a statutory appeal must be exhausted before seeking a constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition challenging the order from the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).
Maiyas Beverages, the petitioner in the writ petition, challenged an order from the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), specifically a 'Warrant of Attachment of Movable Property' dated July 22, 2025.
The core legal issue before the court was whether Maiyas Beverages could directly approach the High Court via a writ petition to quash the EPFO's order, or if it was first required to pursue the specific statutory appeal available under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Counsel for Maiyas Beverages sought to quash the attachment warrant and restrain the EPFO from taking any coercive steps. They effectively argued for the High Court's intervention to set aside the order, which was likely challenged on its merits.
However, the court, in its order by Justice Jyoti M, declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The bench held that against an order passed under Section 7A of the Act, an alternate and specific statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act is available.
The court pointed out that Article 226 is not intended to circumvent statutory procedures. It reiterated the well-settled law that when a statute prescribes a specific remedy for enforcing a right or challenging a liability, that statutory route must be pursued first. A writ petition under Article 226 is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy that should not be entertained unless the existing statutory remedies are demonstrably inadequate to address the situation.
Consequently, finding that the statutory appeal was the proper procedural path, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. As a result of the dismissal, all related interim applications were also disposed of, and any interim directions were discharged.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
