SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
M/S. VEENUS PLY BOARDS – Appellant
Versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7859 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JEEVADAS H., SRI.C.B.MUKUNDAN (THRISSUR), SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J, SMT.ALEESHA SHEREEF
For the Respondents: SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL

No appeal lies against interest under Section 7Q EPF Act; damages recovery stayed pending Tribunal stay.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, orders were passed imposing interest and damages on the petitioner for delayed contributions from 01.10.2016 to 28.02.2024. The petitioner filed appeals before the Tribunal, which remain pending amid recovery proceedings. The court stayed recovery of damages pending stay consideration by the Tribunal, noting its delayed sittings. Second Paragraph: Key issue was maintainability of appeal against interest under Section 7Q, with respondents contending no appeal lies, while petitioner argued for appeal in composite proceedings. The court prima facie held no appeal lies against Section 7Q interest but permitted argument before Tribunal. Ratio emphasizes statutory finality of interest demands absent appeal provision. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing payment of Section 7Q interest in six instalments starting 30.05.2026, stay on Section 14B damages recovery, and withdrawal of proceedings subject to compliance.

Table of Content
1. orders under sections 7q, 14b challenged via pending appeals. (Para 1)
2. debate on appeal maintainability for section 7q interest. (Para 2 , 3)
3. stay on damages recovery; interest payable in instalments. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT The petitioner suffered orders under Section 7Q and Section

14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘the 1952 Act’). Both these orders are on record as Ext.P2 in the writ petition. The petitioner has preferred appeals against both these orders and those appeals are stated to be pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). In the meanwhile, recovery proceedings were initiated to recover the amounts due under the orders referred to above, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Department would submit that no appeal lies against an order demanding interest under Section 7Q of the 1952 Act. It is submitted that in so far as the order imposing damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act is concerned, an appeal can be maintained before the Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are judgments of various courts, which indicate that where the interest is demanded as part of a composite proceeding, an appeal can be maintained against the demand for interest as well. It is submitted that the petitioner will pay off the demand for interest in some instalments and the petitioner may be permitted to argue on the maintainability of an appeal against demand for interest under Section 7Q of the 1952 Act before the Tribunal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of directing that the recovery of amounts adjudicated as damages under Section 14B of the 1952 Act for the period from 01.10.2016 to 28.02.2024 can be kept in abeyance till the stay petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is taken up and considered by the Tribunal. I am inclined to so direct also taking into consideration of the fact that there has been no regular sitting in the Tribunal for a considerable period of time. In so far as the demand for interest is concerned, I am prima facie of the opinion that no appeal can be maintained against an order demanding interest under Section 7Q of the 1952 act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner must be required to pay off the amounts imposed as interest under of the 1952 Act subject to the right of the petitioner to argue on the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner shall pay the amounts imposed as interest under of the 1952 Act in six equal monthly instalments. The 1st of such instalments shall be paid on or before 30.05.2026 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the last working day of succeeding months. Subject to the above conditions, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner to recover the amounts due under the orders marked as Ext.P2 shall stand withdrawn.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top