Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S.SUNDAR, J
Employer concerned – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Madurai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to penalty under epf act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. divergent judicial opinions on mens rea (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. interpretation of mens rea in penalty imposition (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. distinction between civil and criminal liability (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. judicial discretion in imposing penalties (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. guidelines for imposing damages (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. remittance for reconsideration of damages (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. dismissal of petitions with no merit (Para 46 , 49 , 51) |
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
In all these writ petitions, the orders passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal as against the orders levying penalty under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on account of belated payment of provident fund contributions are under challenge. While W.P.(MD)Nos.7339 and 9688 of 2013 have been preferred by the employer concerned, W.P.(MD)Nos.2765 & 2782 of 2014 have been preferred by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Madurai.
2.By the orders impugned in W.P.(MD)Nos.7339 & 9688 of 2013, the Appellate Tribunal, while examining the legality o
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
