Jurisdictional limitations must be strictly observed, as appellate tribunals cannot entertain appeals filed beyond statutory time limits, reinforcing the necessity for procedural compliance in civil liabilities.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. P.K. Panneerselvam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Thangaraj, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

2.The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 05.08.2013 made in ATA No.254(13) of 2013 and quash the same.

3.The appeal in ATA No. 254(13) of 2013 has been filed by the second respondent, the Shevapet Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as Employer/Establishment], challenging the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Salem, dated 12.03.2012 passed under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as Act] by levying damages on the appellant on account of delayed remittance of past accumulations on Employment Provident Fund dues. The authority concerned found that the employer had defaulted in remitting EPF dues on time and hence initiated proceedings under Section 14B of the Act and levied damages.

4.On the appeal filed before the Tribunal by the employer, the Tribunal had observed that the authority who conducted the enquiry under Section 14B of the Act did not follow the essential provisions in a proper perspective. It has further observed that the appellant has not willfully and deliberately withheld the provident fund contribution. On the finding that the delay in remittance of the provident fund was not deliberate and that the beneficiaries are not identified to claim the provident fund dues deposited by the establishment, the appeal was allowed. Now the Employers Provident Fund Organization, represented through its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, has filed this Writ Petition stating that the impugned order of the 1st respondent / Appellate Authority is without jurisdiction and fallacious.

5. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent/establishment has filed the appeal before the 1st respondent beyond the period of limitation, and the impugned order is silent about the point of limitation and entertaining the appeal, which is barred by limitation and hence it is illegal and without jurisdiction. The other argument is that in civil consequences like levying of damages or interest, the intention does not play any active role and the concept of mens rea is applicable only in criminal proceedings.

5.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the division bench judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Siddhi Engineering Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Sub Regional Office reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 44, in support of his contention that the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court under Article 226 or 142 respectively cannot be exercised when the cause of action itself is barred by limitation. To canvass the point on the locus standi of the petitioner to file this Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of this Court held in the case of The Asst. Provident Fund commissioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Scope Minar Core-II and Ors. /b>., in W.P.Nos.24631 to 24633 of 2017 batch., dated 04.08.2023 reported in MANU/TN/7375/2023.

5.2. On the point of mens rea in respect of civil liabilities, reliance was placed on the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Union of India Vs. M/s Dharamendra Textiles Processors and others reported in 2008 (13) SCC 369 , which overruled the earlier division bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint