BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, No.1, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002. ... Petitioner Vs M/s. Madhangi Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Door No.189 Bye Pass Road, Madurai-625010. ...Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the C.G.I.T, cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in EPFA 345/2017 (ATA 1120 (13)/14) dated 22.10.2021 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 vide proceedings No.TN/

RO/ MDU/57980/RO/Circle7/PDC/LD/2014, dated 09.10.2014.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Xavier For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.N.Ramkumar

O R D E R

The EPF authority has filed this writ petition as against the order of the EPF Appellate Tribunal in EPFA No.345/2017 (ATA 1120 (13-14), dated 22.10.2021, in and by which, the levy of damages by the Original Authority has been reduced to 30% of the dues determined, on the ground of mensrea.

2.The above appeal was filed by the respondent establishment as against the order passed by the EPF Authority, under Section 14B of the EPF Act, levying damages to the tune of Rs.11,71,766/-. The respondent Establishment is covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and it was also allotted with the PF code No. MD/MDU/57980. The Establishment has failed to remit the EPF contribution for the period from February 2004 to February 2014. Therefore, the EPF Authority has initiated an enquiry, by issuing a show cause notice on 21.01.2014 and also passed an order, levying damages under Section 14B of the Act, by its order, dated 09.10.2014, directing the respondent establishment to pay a sum of Rs.11,35,967/-. Aggrieved over the above order, the respondent Establishment has preferred an appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, under Section 7(I) of the Act, in EPF A.345/2017 (ATA 1120(13/14). The EPF Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 22.10.2021 has partly allowed the appeal, by reducing the deposit amount as 30%, on the ground that the respondent Establishment was in financial difficulty and there was no mensrea for this belated payment. Challenging the same, the EPF Authority has preferred this writ petition.

3.The learned Standing counsel appearing for the EPF Authority, by referring to the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station, Goorge Vs. Regional Provident Fund Organization, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 516, submits that there cannot be any mensrea or actus reus for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Establishment submits that the Establishment was in financial difficulty at that relevant point of time. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has considered the case of the Establishment and also modified the damages levied under Section 14B of the Act, to 30% of the determined dues. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal does not warrant any interference.

5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

6.The requirement of mens rea has already been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Vs Regional Provident Fund Organisation reported in (2022) 2 SCC 516 , wherein it has been has held as under:

“15.Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject, it is well settled that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities.

19.Taking note of the three-Judge Bench judgment of thi