Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Central Board of Trustees EPF Organisation – Appellant
Versus
B2R Technologies Pvt. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19th April, 2021 passed by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the Respondent-Company challenging the original order dated 27th February, 2020 passed by the RPFC-II under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, `EPF Act') imposing damages of Rs. 1,72,434/- on the Respondent-Company. The operative portion of the order reads:
"The appeal be and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the RPFC u/s 14B is hereby set aside. The Respondent is directed to refund the entire damage amount recovered from the appellant during the pendency of the appeal within one month from the date of communication of this order without interest failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of recovery and till the payment is made. No order can be passed to direct the respondent to refund the interest recovered in excess since the tribunal lacks jurisdiction in respect of any
Damages under Section 14B cannot be imposed without establishing mens rea concerning delay in provident fund deposits.
Mens rea is not required for imposing damages under the EPF Act; damages serve as penalties for defaults and ensure employee benefits, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions from authorities.
The court established that while imposing damages under the Act, the circumstances around the delay should be considered, rather than imposing 100% damages mandatorily.
Mens rea is not required for imposing damages under Section 14B of the Act; damages can be levied based on default in payment of provident fund contributions.
Financial difficulties do not justify delayed remittance of provident fund contribution, and lack of mens rea is not a sufficient defense.
Damages under Section 14B leviable for delayed PF remittance without need for mens rea; Tribunal's discretion upheld.
For the imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the establishment of mens rea is not a mandatory requirement. Once a delay in r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
