BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Officer No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002. ...Petitioner Vs M/s.The Ramanathapuram District Co-Operative Printing Works Limited, Industrial Estate, Devakottai Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the learned CGIT cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in EPFA No.530 of 2018 ATA 02(13)/2016) dated 22.09.2021 and quash the same by confirming the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in his proceedings No.TN/RO/MDU/6072/M40/PDC/LD/2015 dated

12.11.2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Xavier For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganesan, Legal Aid Counsel

ORDER

The Employees Provident Fund Authority has filed this writ petition as against the orders passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in EPFA No.530 of 2018 ATA 02(13)/2016) dated 22.09.2021.

2.The said appeal was preferred by the respondent co-operative printing press limited as against the orders of the EPF Authority levying damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provident Funds Act [in short 'the EPF Act']. The respondent establishment is covered under the provisions of the EPF Act and also is allotted with EPF code No.6072. This establishment paid EPF contribution for the period from April 2008 to April 2013 belatedly. Therefore, the EPF authority initiated the penal proceedings under Section 14B of the EPF Act, conducted enquiry and levied damages of Rs.1,94,937/- as against the respondent establishment on 12.11.2015. This order was challenged before the EPF appellate tribunal.

The EPF appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by order dated

22.09.201, reducing the damages to 50% on the following grounds: (i) Mens rea or actus reus is necessary ingredient for levy of damages and quantum and therefore the EPF organisation has to consider the circumstances for the delay in remittance of the contribution. (ii) Para 2A of the EPF scheme can be termed only as guideline.

(iii) The adjudicating authority though cannot waive the damages in toto in view of Clause 32 of the EPF Scheme, could have imposed lesser amount.

(iv) Section 14 B of the EPF Act itself speaks 'may recover'.

Therefore authority has got a discretion to exercise his authority in the special circumstances considering the financial position of the establishment.

3.The learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Vs Regional Provident Fund Organisation reported in (2022) 2 SCC 516 submits that the necessity of mens rea and actus reus has already been declared as not essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities. He has also relied on various judgments passed by this court relying upon the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the financial crisis cannot be a ground to reduce the quantum of penalty levied under Section 14B of the EPF Act as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Times Limited Vs Union of India and Others [(1998) 2 SCC 242].

4.Though notice was served on the respondent and the name of the respondent was also printed in the cause list, there was no representation for the respondent and therefore, this court appointed a legal aid counsel to defend this case on behalf of the respondent society.

5.Mr.Ganesan, learned legal aid counsel submits that the respondent is a co-operative printing society exclusively established for printing works. As per the by law of