BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.15472 of 2022 and WMP(MD) No.11113 of 2022 M/s. Madurai Meenakshi Food Products, New No.94, Khanpalayam 1^st Street, Madurai – 625 009.

Tamil Nadu Through its Proprietor. ... Petitioner Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road - Chokkikulam, Madurai 625 002. ... Respondent PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the file of the CGIT cum Labour Court, Chennai herein EPFA No.310/2018 and to quash the order dated 10.01.2020 and set aside the Order passed by Respondent in No.TN/MDU/97363/Enf.C/Circle-15/M-5/15022/2016, dated 22.02.2016 claiming contribution under section 7A of the EPF Act for the period from December 2013 to December 2015 to the tune of Rs.2,35,989/-.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.A.John Xavior

O R D E R

The Petitioner's Firm is covered under the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and they have also been allotted with a PF Code No. TN/97363, with effect from 01.12.2013. The petitioner Establishment has failed to pay the EPF contribution for the period from December 2013 to December 2015. Therefore, the EPF Authority, after issuing a show cause notice on 03.06.2014, conducted an enquiry on 02.07.2014 for determination of the dues under Section 7A of the Act. Since the petitioner Establishment did not appear for the enquiry proceedings, the EPF Authority has determined the dues under Section 7A of the Act, as Rs.2,30,332/-, vide File No.TN/MDU/ 97363/ Enf.C/ Circle-15/ M-5/15022/2015, dated 22.02.2016. As against the order passed under Section 7A of the Act, the petitioner has filed a review application under Section 7B of the Act and that was also rejected by the EPF authority on 27.07.2016. Thereafter, this petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal, before the Tribunal under Section 7(I) of the EPF Act in EPFA No.310 of 2018 (A/TA-125/2018). For any appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal, the employer is mandated to deposit 75% of the amount as determined under section 7A of the Act, as required under Section 7(O) of the Act. The petitioner has not deposited that amount, however, as per the proviso class available under Section 7(O) of the Act, the tribunal has reduced the amount to 20% of the determined amount. The petitioner has not paid even this reduced amount and therefore the EPF Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition in the year 2022.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appeal was filed in the year 2016 and it was rejected by the Tribunal in the year 2019. In the meantime, the Company has suffered a huge loss and also the proprietor of the petitioner Establishment died. Therefore, they were not in a position to pay this amount as directed by the Appellate Tribunal. According to the petitioner, though there were 20 employees, most of the employees are closely related and therefore, the coverage under the EPF Act itself is not proper. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is having a good case on merits before the Appellate Tribunal, however, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal, on technical grounds that the amount as required under Section 7(O) of the Act has not been deposited. He further submits that the petitioner is now ready to pay 20% of the dues as directed by the Appellate Tribunal in the year 2016 and therefore, he must be provided with one opportunity.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the EPF Authority submits that the dues determined by the EPF authority under Section 7A of the Act is not a huge amount. Though the petitioner had to make pre-deposit of 75% of the determined amount, it has b