Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 07-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Dineshkumar, former employee of Kritika Fibre Product, employed for ten years.
  • Respondents: (1) Secretary Labour and Employee Department, Secretariat Chennai; (2) Commissioner, Commissionerate of Labour, Chennai; (3) Employees Provident Fund Organisation represented by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chennai; (4) Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chennai; (5) Kritika Fibre Product represented by proprietor Raju Arjunan.
  • Petition filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the fifth respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 17 February 2026 concerning non‑payment of Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) benefits.
  • Petitioner alleged that the employer failed to provide an employee code and Universal Account Number (UAN). Counsel for petitioner could not produce these numbers.
  • Counsel for the third respondent (EPFO) appeared; the court examined the submissions and records.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the grievance regarding lack of employee code/UAN is a matter for the petitioner to pursue before the appropriate court or tribunal.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any costs.
  • The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

Topics: Labour Law, Court Order