JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions are directed against different orders of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) on diverse dates, which the provident fund authorities have challenged in these writ petitions. They have been filed by the Central Board, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization. In course of hearing, a preliminary point was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition primarily on various points. 2. Since a common point of maintainability arose in respect of all the writ petitions, the issue is being disposed of by a common judgment and order. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, the learned Senior Counsel has made submissions on behalf of the establishments and Mr. Pal, the learned Senior Advocate submitted for the petitioner. 3. There has been a serious issue agitated that since there is no body or authority by the name of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization in the statute, it cannot have any Central Board of Trustees. Secondly, filing a writ petition or challenging an order of the Tribunal falls outside the purview of the powers and functioning of the Central Board of Trustees. Therefore, these writ petitions at their instance are not plainly maintainable. The power of delegation by the Central Board of Trustees cannot be used for challenging an order of the Tribunal. Lastly, the maintainability of these petitions was challenged on the ground that the Central Board of Trustees not being a party to the earlier stages of the proceedings, it cannot figure as a writ petitioner without first obtaining leave of this Court. 4. Mr. Pal had submitted that if Section 5E is read with Section 5D (iii) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (the Act, for short) no man shall hold that the Central Board of Trustees cannot delegate its power to any of the officers to discharge the same functions as a delegator. The Central Board of Trustees consists of 43 members having their respective offices throughout the country. Therefore, the legislature evolved a procedure by which the actions can be taken on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees by its delegate viz., Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and this has exactly been done in the present case. 5. The Central Board of Trustees consists of 43 members having their respective offices throughout the country. Therefore, the legislature evolved a procedure by which the actions can be taken on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees by its delegate viz., Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and this has exactly been done in the present case. 5. The petitioner submits that if the Act is read as a whole, it will be obvious that the Central Board’s works are to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Act. The mention of different rates in the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme (the Scheme, for short) brings out the consequences of not observing the statutory provisions. The classic example of the consequences which would follow is damages and interest. According to him, the argument that damages and interest do not form part of the Fund as contemplated under the statute is wholly without justification. Mr. Pal is not so much on the Vokalatnama filed as it can be rectified at any moment. This cannot invalidate the entire proceedings; this was a technical flaw which can be rectified. 6. Section 14 B of the said Act provides that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officers as may be authorised by the Government, is to recover from the establishment by way of penalty or damages. The second proviso to Section 14B makes a distinction between the Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Central Board of Trustees which is a superior authority to waive or reduce the damages. Therefore, the Central Board is authorised to consider and administer the various schemes under the Act. The identity of the Board has further been spelt out in Section 5C of the Act with the power to sue or be sued. This is a plenary power without any limitation. Mr. Pal has expanded his submission that an order which reduces the damages imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or other officers entitles the Central Board or its delegates to take action including a legal one for efficient administration of the Fund and the Scheme framed there under which includes the protection of the interest of the employees to have better funds available with them by imposition of damages. The Tribunal cannot forget the provisions of paragraph 32A of the Scheme by describing different periods of defaults and the rates of damages for such defaults. Therefore, Mr. The Tribunal cannot forget the provisions of paragraph 32A of the Scheme by describing different periods of defaults and the rates of damages for such defaults. Therefore, Mr. Pal submits, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is empowered to file a case on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees. The power of delegation is already there in the Act, so it is not required to take any further specific authorization from the Central Board of Trustees for filling the writ petition against an order of the concerned Tribunal. 7. Since the Vokalatnama was signed by an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and the writ petitions were affirmed either by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner or officers subordinate to him, I called for the records to ascertain whether any specific authorization was taken by the petitioner before filing these writ petitions in the name of the Central Board of Trustees. 8. After the records were produced it appears that a proposal for moving the writ petition was made entirely from the respective regional offices. An employee attached to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’s office submitted a note that the order of Tribunal might be challenged before the higher forum, the matter was, therefore, placed before the higher authority. The higher authority had approved the proposal. It appears that the offices of the respective Regional Provident Fund Commissioners did not obtain any specific authorization from the Central Board of Trustees before filing the writ petitions. 9. The petitioner further submitted that case - specific authorization was not necessary as the power to sue and be sued in the name of the Central Board of Trustees was delegated by a decision taken by the said Board in a meeting held on April 4, 1989. Subsequently, the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner-I (Compliance) by a communication dated September 15/16, 2014, had communicated the respective Regional Provident Fund Commissioners that writ petitions shall be filed in the name of Central Board of Trustees, EPF through RPFC/APFC/law officials. 10. Mr. Pal also relied on an order, dated June 5, 2014, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.18275 (W) of 2013, holding that in view of Section 5C of the Act, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in his individual capacity cannot prefer a writ petition challenging an order of the Employees’ Provident Fund Tribunal. According to Mr. According to Mr. Paul from this time onwards the Provident Fund authorities have started filing writ petitions against order passed by the Tribunal in the name of the Central Board of Trustees. 11. I have heard the rival contentions of the learned Advocates and have given my anxious consideration to the same. Section 5A of the Act empowers the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette to constitute a Board of Trustees for the territories to which this Act extends, consisting of members as mentioned in the Act. Section 5A (3) specifically says that the Central Board shall, subject to the provisions of Section 6A and Section 6C of the Act, administer the fund vested in it in such manner as may be specified in this Scheme. Section 5A (4) casts an obligation to perform such other functions as it may be required to perform by or under the provisions of various Schemes as mentioned therein. And, Section 5A (5) requires the Central Board to maintain proper accounts of its income and expenditure in such form and in such manner as the Central Government may specify in this Scheme. Section 5AA empowers the Central Government to constitute an Executive Committee to assist the Central Board in the performance of its functions. Section 5C of the Act declares the Board of Trustees to be a body corporate under the name specified in the notification constituting it having perpetual succession and common seal and it shall by the same name sue and be sued. 12. The description of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is very faulty. These writ petitions have been filed in the name of "Central Board or Central Board of Trustees, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization", suggesting as if there is something called Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and the Central Board or Central Board of Trustees is either a part or a branch or a wing of it. It is time for the Provident Funds authorities to appreciate and acknowledge that there is nothing of the sort of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization in the whole scheme of the Act. This must have been the creation of the provident fund authorities treating themselves as an organization. Therefore, these writ petitions must fail primarily on the ground of being filed by a wrong organization or in the name of a fictitious body which has no statutory recognition. 13. This must have been the creation of the provident fund authorities treating themselves as an organization. Therefore, these writ petitions must fail primarily on the ground of being filed by a wrong organization or in the name of a fictitious body which has no statutory recognition. 13. That apart, a very major point to be taken note of is that these writ petitions arise out of the judgments and orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in respective appeals filed before it. The Central Board of Trustees was not a party to any of such appeals. Therefore, if they had been aggrieved by the order, it was imperative for them to take prior leave of the Court to challenge the orders passed in appeal. The writ petitions at the instance of a third party, at least in the sense that it was not a party in any of the appeals before the Tribunal, is plainly not maintainable unless preceded by a leave of the court. 14. It has already been noted that the Scheme of the Act says that the fund shall vest and be administered by the Central Board constituted under Section 5A of the said Act. The expression ‘fund’ has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Act as the provident fund established under a Scheme. As noted earlier, the powers and functions of the Central Board, have been provided in Section 5A (3) to Section 5A (9) of the Act. It may be mentioned that Section 5A of the original Act was subsequently considerably amended by the Amending Act No. 33 of 1988. Apart from various alterations effected, sub-Sections (5) to (9) were added. The high level committee that was set up as well as the Central Board of Trustees had made a number of recommendations based on which certain amendments were carried out. So far as the Central Board is concerned its composition was changed and it was given enhanced powers in the matter of appointment of officers and staff, creation of posts, specifying methods of recruitment, salary and allowances of its officers and staff for the smooth functioning of the schemes administered by it, etc. So far as the Central Board is concerned its composition was changed and it was given enhanced powers in the matter of appointment of officers and staff, creation of posts, specifying methods of recruitment, salary and allowances of its officers and staff for the smooth functioning of the schemes administered by it, etc. Therefore, one thing stands out very clearly that sub-Sections (5) to (9) of Section 5A of the Act are entirely concerned with the administrative issues and maintenance of the accounts of the Central Board of its income and expenditure, method of auditing of its accounts and its obligation to submit to the Central Government an annual report of its work and activities. The Central Government has to cause a copy of the annual report and the audited accounts together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to be laid before each House of Parliament. 15. Section 5AA (1) deals with an Executive Committee to assist the Central Board in the performance of its functions. The composition of the Executive Committee has been specified in Sub-Section (2) of Section 5AA and Section 5AA(3) deals with the terms and conditions subject to which the members of the Executive Committee may be appointed or elected and the venue, time, etc., of the procedure of meetings of the committee. 16. If these are the provisions in the Act relating to constitution, composition, and powers of the Central Board, the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (the Scheme, for short) also makes several provisions in Paragraphs 11 to 18 relating to the amendment and procedure for holding meetings of the Central Board of Trustees or its Executive Committee or Regional Committee. Appointment and powers of the Commissioner and other staff of Board of Trustees have been dealt with in Paragraphs 19 to 24 of Chapter-III of the said Scheme. 17. It is important to note that under Paragraph 19 of the Scheme, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner is not empowered to undertake any work unconnected with his office without the previous sanction of the Central Government. Under Paragraph 22, he is the Secretary of the Central Board and of the Executive Committee. 17. It is important to note that under Paragraph 19 of the Scheme, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner is not empowered to undertake any work unconnected with his office without the previous sanction of the Central Government. Under Paragraph 22, he is the Secretary of the Central Board and of the Executive Committee. The Secretary to the Central Board or the Executive Committee is empowered, in consultation with the Chairman to convene meetings of the Central Board or the Executive Committee or the Regional Committee, as the case may be, keep a record of the minutes and is empowered to take necessary steps for carrying out the decision of the Central Board or the Executive Committee, as the case may be. A commissioner has also been given some administrative and financial powers under Paragraph 24 of the said Scheme which says that he may without reference to the Central Board sanction expenditure on contingencies, supplies and services and purchases of articles required for administering the fund subject to financial provision in the budget and subject to the limits up to which a commissioner may be authorised to sanction expenditure on any single item from time to time by the Central Board. 18. Thus, it is very clear that Section 5A of the Act and Chapter III of the concerned Scheme only confer powers upon the Central Board of Trustees for the administration of the fund vested in it. Until and unless a fund is vested, the Central Board of Trustees cannot assume jurisdiction. It is only after this vesting that the fund can be administered by the Central Board of Trustees. 19. If administration of fund is the only sphere where the Central Board can exercise its jurisdiction, it follows as a natural corollary that it cannot exercise any power which does not fall within its jurisdiction. In other words, even if there is a delegation of power by the Central Board beyond its statutory limit, the same must be deemed to be an improper delegation or excessive authorization. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner regularly exercises powers for recovery of provident fund dues as provided in the Act and disposes of matters in connection therewith. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner regularly exercises powers for recovery of provident fund dues as provided in the Act and disposes of matters in connection therewith. If such a power is not enjoyed by the Central Board of Trustees, they cannot file a writ petition challenging the order of a Tribunal and to seek to uphold an order for recovery of dues or levying damages by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. That is clearly outside its scope of function which is merely administration of fund. 20. If the fund is to be compared with the estate the expression administration in relation to it legally means management and settling of that estate. In the case of R. B. Jodha Mall Kuthalia v. CIT, reported in AIR 1972 SC 126 , the Supreme Court interpreted it as a power to deal with the estate. If, on the other hand, administration is used in respect of an institution the word means management of affairs of the institution and this management must be free of control. No part of this management can be taken away and vested in another body without an encroachment upon the guaranteed right. 21. The petitioner has strenuously argued that way back in the year 1989 there has been a delegation of power by the Central Board in favour of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, etc., to sue or be sued in its name. Mr. Pal has also relied on Section 5C of the Act which declares that every Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A or 5B of the Act, to be a body corporate under the name specified in the notification constituting it. It has perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue or be sued. 22. The argument overlooks that Section 5C is not concerned with Central Board of Trustees alone. Even otherwise when a statute empowers a body corporate to sue it must be in respect of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute or in respect of a matter relating to its statutory functions. 22. The argument overlooks that Section 5C is not concerned with Central Board of Trustees alone. Even otherwise when a statute empowers a body corporate to sue it must be in respect of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute or in respect of a matter relating to its statutory functions. If the power to sue is sought to be interpreted in respect of any matter which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Board of Trustees, such power plainly cannot be exercised by it encroaching upon the jurisdiction of some other authority under the Act. The statute nowhere says that recovering the dues from different establishments and augmenting the fund is a part of the duty. Recovery of dues, bringing different establishments within the coverage under the Act, determination of the amounts due from the employers, review of the orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, determination of interest payable by the employer or levying damages do not come within the jurisdiction of the Central Board of Trustees. These are matters which have been scrupulously assigned to other authorities. 23. The legal connotation of the word ‘body corporate’ has been fairly well-defined over the years. A ‘body corporate’ comes into existence when a number of persons are united together so as to be considered as one person possessing the character of perpetuity and its existence is constantly maintained by the succession of new individuals in the place of the old ones. When any statute says that a body corporate must sue or be sued by its corporate name, it does not alter the nature of rights conferred upon the body corporate by the authorization to sue all that if it has to do it in the corporate name. 24. It has never been an issue that the Central Board of Trustees cannot sue anybody or establishment in its own name. For the purposes for which the Central Board has been created and constituted it can definitely sue as a corporate body. When the statute confers upon a person or a body the right to sue it must be for the cause, protection, preservation of its basic right and scope of activity. For the purposes for which the Central Board has been created and constituted it can definitely sue as a corporate body. When the statute confers upon a person or a body the right to sue it must be for the cause, protection, preservation of its basic right and scope of activity. The connotation of the words ‘to sue’ cropped up in several judgments and it has been variously interpreted; but in no case it has given power to a person or a body corporate to travel beyond its authority for espousing a cause which does not fall within its jurisdiction. 25. In the case of Haroodhone v. Usha Charan, reported in AIR 1955 Cal 292 , a Division Bench of this Court included in the right to sue even the right to defend which the law requires for the better prosecution or defence of the cause. The lexical meaning of the words ‘to sue’ is to prosecute by law or to claim a civil right by means of legal procedure (Wartan’s Law Lexican, 15th Edition, p. 1660). Again in the case of Province of Bombay v. Kusal Das S. Advani, reported in AIR 1950 SC 222 , the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the expression and, inter alia, held that it meant the enforcement of a claim or a civil right by means of legal proceedings. 26. One thing thus stands out very clearly that such exercise to sue must be in connection with a right which a person or a body corporate has. Unless the right comes in direct nexus with the authority that a person or body corporate enjoys, it becomes a stranger to the entire proceeding initiated in his or its name. If a sceptic expressing in doubtful mind wants to satisfy himself about the competence of the Central Board to initiate a proceeding against an order of the Appellate Tribunal, he may certainly and quite legitimately, raise certain disagreeable queries, viz., if the Central Board of Trustees is competent to sue an establishment why was it not mentioned in the original order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner or why was not the order passed by the Central Board of Trustees? Why did the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner alone defend the appeal or alternatively why was it not insisted at the appellate stage that the Central Board is a proper party, if not a necessary one? Why does the Central Board seek to justify and uphold an action which is not its, but the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund or Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner? Is recovery of dues and interest from an employer or levying damages a part of the duty of the Central Board that it must come forward to shoulder the responsibility of authorities different from the Central Board? 27. These are some of the uncomfortable issue for which the petitioners have no satisfactory answer. If the right to sue is a right to preserve any assured or vested right of a party, unless that right inheres in the body corporate or a person, it will be a very wrong procedure for that body to be allowed to agitate the same and that will be permitting something to a body corporate which will be against the very fundamental of jurisprudential concept. 28. Mr. Pal quite strenuously argued that since the Central Board consists of 43 members having their respective offices throughout India, it was contemplated by the legislature to evolve a situation or procedure by which actions can be taken on behalf of the Central Board by its delegates, viz., Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner which has been done in the present case. Thus in a case the Tribunal committing any wrong or passing any order without following the provisions of law, the Central Board of Trustees cannot be without any remedy. 29. It is easier to follow the argument but difficult to accept. Mr. Pal despite an assertive claim that the legislature had provided for delegation in respect of an action to be taken on behalf of the Central Board could not produce any provision whereby the Central Board has delegated its power to an authority for initiating an action against an order passed by the Tribunal or to take any step in furtherance of the recovery action. Paragraph 24A of the Scheme deals with the delegation of power by the Central Board which is reproduced below: “24A. Paragraph 24A of the Scheme deals with the delegation of power by the Central Board which is reproduced below: “24A. Delegation of power by the Central Board.- The Central Board may, by a resolution, empower its Chairman to sanction expenditure on any item, whether in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure, as it may deem necessary for the efficient administration of the Fund, subject to financial provisions in the Budget, where such expenditure is beyond the limits up to, which the Commissioner is authorised to sanction expenditure on any single item. (2) The Central Board may also, by a resolution, empower its Chairman to appoint such officers and employees other than those mentioned in sub-Sections (1) and (2) of the Section 5D of the Act, as he may consider necessary for the efficient administration of the Scheme. (3) All sanctions of expenditure made by the Chairman in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) shall be reported to the Central Board as soon as possible after the sanction of the expenditure.” 30. Thus Paragraph 24A makes it very clear that the Central Board’s power to delegate is absolutely restricted to sanctioning expenditure on any item, whether in the nature of capital or revenue expenditure, as it may deem necessary for the efficient administration of the fund, subject to the financial provisions of the budget. Over and above that the Central Board may also empower its Chairman to appoint such officers and employees other than those mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5D of the Act as he may consider it necessary for efficient administration of the Scheme. These are only the spheres where the Central Board may delegate its authority to the Chairman. 31. When the statute lays down the subjects in respect of which a body corporate can delegate its powers, any purported delegation beyond the scope of the same must be held to be manifestly incompetent. It has already been noted that the Central Board exercises no power relating to or, it may be said that it is not concerned with, the recovery of dues from an individual establishment. Thus, there is no question of delegating any power which a person or a body does not enjoy. A person or an authority or a body corporate may delegate only such powers which it enjoys. Thus, there is no question of delegating any power which a person or a body does not enjoy. A person or an authority or a body corporate may delegate only such powers which it enjoys. It must equally be noted that even if the Central Board had the power, it could not delegate such power of recovery or instituting a proceeding to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to challenge an order passed by the Tribunal as that is clearly beyond the scope of the power of delegation as provided in the Scheme. The Central Board may certainly delegate its power in favour of the Chairman only in respect of the very limited area as provided in the Act or the Scheme, and not beyond it. Thus, the argument of Mr. Pal must have to fail as it completely ignores this very basic aspect of the limit set by the legislature upon the Central Board in the matter of delegating its authority. 32. The petitioner has relied on a resolution taken by the Central Board in its 109th meeting on April 4, 1989 whereby the Central Board approved proposals regarding delegation of powers to the law officers, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) to institute file, conduct, execute and defend all legal proceedings by or against the Central Board of Trustees as the ultimate answer to the issues raised in these petitions. 33. I have carefully examined the resolution and find that certain classes of officers have been authorised and empowered to institute, conduct, prosecute and defend civil and criminal proceedings by or against the Central Board or the Central Provident Fund Commissioner and or Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and to appear for and on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees. 34. This delegation of power must be interpreted only in respect of the power that the statute has conferred upon the Central Board. Delegating an authority to some officials to institute or conduct legal proceedings by or against the Central Board does never mean that the power which the Central Board enjoys may ever be exceeded. A delegate may exercise power only in respect of the subject matters falling within its jurisdiction. Delegating an authority to some officials to institute or conduct legal proceedings by or against the Central Board does never mean that the power which the Central Board enjoys may ever be exceeded. A delegate may exercise power only in respect of the subject matters falling within its jurisdiction. Moreover, in view of the specific limits set in Paragraph 24A of the Scheme the so called delegation of the Central Board must be held to be beyond the statutory bounds in all respects. Where is the scope for the Central Board to delegate the right relating to prosecution and defence of cases upon certain classes of officials mentioned? Even if, the subject matter of any proceeding falls within the exclusive domain of the Central Board of Trustees, such delegation is impermissible in view of Paragraph 24A of the Scheme. It suffers from the vice of excessive delegation and that too in favour of officials not contemplated by the statute. 35. From the records produced in Court it appears that the petitioner had lulled itself in a misconception of law and procedure. One of the documents shows that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner had directed to obviate any possible objection to file cases in the name of Central Board of Trustees through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. After issuing this direction it was probably thought to be sacrosanct and actions followed pursuant to it. 36. Even such a direction by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner is against the provisions of the statute. We have already seen the extent of power enjoyed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. They are primarily concerned with convening meetings of the Central Board, keeping the record of the minutes and taking necessary steps for carrying out the decision of the Central Board. Thus, even if, the Central Board had taken a decision that in all matters of the sorts of the present ones shall be initiated in the name of the Central Board of Trustees, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, and equally the Central Board of Trustees, must be held to have exceeded his or its jurisdiction in making the communication and taking the decision. Moreover, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is not empowered to represent the Central Board of Trustees so that any proceeding may be initiated in the name of the Central Board through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Moreover, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is not empowered to represent the Central Board of Trustees so that any proceeding may be initiated in the name of the Central Board through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. As a matter of fact, the courses of action taken including different directives passed by the petitioner for conducting a case, has been based on certain basic misconception about the scope and extent of the powers that may be exercised by the respective authorities. 37. For the petitioner a problem facing it is, and argued by Mr. Pal, if the Central Board does not have power to take legal proceedings against any establishment that will amount to frustrating the very object as used in object of Section 5D (3) of the Act which uses the expression ‘as it may consider necessary for the efficient administration of the Scheme, Pension Scheme and the Insurance Scheme’. 38. This has been a rather stunning submission. Section 5D has nothing to do with legal proceeding to be taken by the Central Board. It deals only with the appointments of officers. In that connection it had been mentioned in Section 5D (3) that the Central Board may appoint, subject to the condition as mentioned therein, as many number of officials and employees as it may be necessary for the efficient administration of different Schemes. The necessity for the efficient administration of the Scheme has been mentioned only with regard to appointment of officers and employees, and not for legal proceedings. 39. Equally unacceptable is the petitioner’s interpretation of the expression ‘fund’. The line of argument runs like this: there is a statutory obligation of payment of fine, there is a statutory obligation of deposit of provident fund and payment of fine and penalty, damages, interest, etc. Thus, the fund not only includes the deposits already meant but the deposits requirsed to be made for defaults as damages including penalty and interest. 40. Such an argument overlooks the basic conception of ‘fund’ expressed through the definition in Section 2(h) of the Act as the Provident Fund established under a Scheme. The use of the definitive article ‘the’ before Provident Fund and indefinite article ‘a’ before the word ‘Scheme’ has to be understood with the interpretative subtleties. Coupled with it is the fact that the word ‘establish’ has been used in its past participle form. The use of the definitive article ‘the’ before Provident Fund and indefinite article ‘a’ before the word ‘Scheme’ has to be understood with the interpretative subtleties. Coupled with it is the fact that the word ‘establish’ has been used in its past participle form. Thus, the definition of the word ‘Fund’, if etymologically analysed and syntactically understood, means the Provident Fund which has been established under any of the Scheme. This fund must be a specific one, expressed through the word ‘the’. It cannot be something non-specific which is yet to come in the hand of the authorities. If the argument of Mr. Pal is to be accepted, I am afraid, that will be giving a total go-by to the concept of fund understood and meant by the legislature, if not amounting to introducing hitherto unknown notions in the cardinal conceptualization of the objective of the Act. 41. If monies that have not yet come to the hands of the Provident Fund authorities are also included within the definition of fund, one wonders how the Central Board shall administer the same. After all, the function of the Central Board is to administer the fund vested in it in such manner as may be prescribed. It follows unreservedly that unless the Fund is vested in the Central Board, it does not derive any right to administer the same. A money liable to be recovered from different employers has, therefore, been deliberately and thoughtfully kept outside the definition of the word ‘fund’ by the legislature. The petitioner has ingenuously included it in the definition of ‘fund’ and has invested the statute with a character which is clearly against the purpose for which it was enacted. 42. Again the power vested in the Central Board by the second proviso to Section 14 B of the Act to reduce or waive damages in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company and in respect of which a Scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, is no answer to the challenge that the Central Board is not concerned with levying damages from employers making default in payment of contribution to the fund. In aid of discharging of its duties of and as a necessary corollary to administering the fund the Central Board has also been given the power to reduce or waive damages in respect of certain classes of establishments which forms a part of its duties. Moreover, the question of reducing or waiving damages relates to a policy decision of the Provident Fund authorities and such a decision has to be taken by the highest authority. A Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner while passing an order levying damages cannot simultaneously be invested with the power of reduction or waiver of the same. That would have been totally against the concept of hierarchical function in an administrative set up. 43. The petitioner submitted that the previous practise of filing writ petitions against an order of the Tribunal in the name of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had to be discontinued because of an order, dated June 5, 2014, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18275 (W) of 2013. That order has been placed before me. A learned Single Judge of this Court had held that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in his individual capacity cannot prefer a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. However, the competent authority’s right to file a petition has been recognised in view of Section 5C of the Act. Although the competent authority has not been mentioned in the order, since Section 5C of the Act was referred to, it may be taken to be the Central Board of Trustees. 44. That order is virtually a non-speaking one. It has not decided any ratio or laid down any point of law so that it may operate a precedent. There was no occasion for the Court to consider whether the Central Board really enjoyed the power to challenge an order of the Tribunal despite the existence of Section 5C in the statute. Moreover, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was filing cases not in his individual capacity, but in his official capacity. In any case, since that order of the learned Single Judge is not a precedent it has no binding effect upon a subsequent Bench of coordinate jurisdiction examining the competence of the Central Board of Trustees to bring an action challenging an order of the Tribunal. 45. In any case, since that order of the learned Single Judge is not a precedent it has no binding effect upon a subsequent Bench of coordinate jurisdiction examining the competence of the Central Board of Trustees to bring an action challenging an order of the Tribunal. 45. I have thus considered the submission and rival contentions of the parties and find that the instant action taken in the name of the Central Board of Trustees is not supportable from any stand point. The petitioner has ultimately relied on the delegation of power made by the Central Board in favour of certain classes of officials as the justification of filing the writ petitions in the name of the Central Board. It has already been found that such delegation is bad and incompetent, both for want of specific authority and being in excess of the powers possessed by the Central Board. 46. I am of the view that all these writ petitions filed in the name of the Central Board of Trustees must be held to be incompetent from any point of view. 47. The writ petitions are not maintainable and hereby dismissed. 48. There shall be no order as to the costs. 49. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.) S. Banerjee Later: 50. After I delivered the judgment in open Court, Mr. Gupta, the leaned Advocate appearing for the petitioners prayed for stay of operation of the judgment and order. Mr. Sengupta has opposed the prayer. 51. Since the writ petitions have been found to be not maintainable in the form and manner in which they have been filed, there is no question of staying its operation. 52. The prayer of Mr. Gupta is heard, considered and rejected. After delivery of judgment three original records, produced in Court in connection with the writ petitions, have been returned to Mr. Prasad, the learned Advocate for the petitioner.