IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-10-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P No. 30827 of 2023 and W.M.P. No. 30500 of 2023 M/s. Josco Footwear Products Pvt. Ltd., No.1-4, Abishegapakkam Main Road, Abishegapakkam, Pondicherry – 605 007. ..Petitioner Vs

1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, O/o. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation, No.101, 100 Feet Road, Cholan Nagar, Olanthaikeerapalayam, Puducherry – 605 004.

2.The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sri Venni Complex, No.101, 100 Feet Road, Cholan Nagar, Olanthaikeerapalayam, Puducherry – 605 004.

3.The Branch Manager, CSB Bank, Rangapillai Street, Puducherry – 605 001. ..Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.TN/RO/PDY/448-B/PDC/14-B/PENAL DAMAGES/2023, dated 31.03.2023 and the Consequential Prohibitory order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in No.RO/PDY/Recovery/DIV-I/PC 448-B/CP- 5/(3)/2023 dated 21.09.2023, quash the same and consequently forebear the 1st and the 2nd respondent from taking any action against the petitioner without following the due process of law.

For Petitioner : Ms. AMI. V.Kataria For Respondents : Mr. C. Kulanthaivel, for R1 & R2

O R D E R

1. The captioned writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the first respondent under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the said order, a sum of Rs.5,92,324/- has been sought to be recovered as damages from the writ petitioner for delayed remittance of provident fund contributions.

2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the impugned order does not disclose the rate of damages/interest levied on the delayed payment of provident fund contributions. According to the petitioner, the respondent-authority appears to have mechanically imposed damages at the rate of 25%, which is the upper limit under Regulation 32A of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. It is contended that, in the absence of proper reasons and without disclosure of the applicable rate as required under the scheme, the impugned order is not in conformity with Regulation 32A and is therefore liable to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that against an order passed under Section 14B of the Act, an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952, and therefore, the present writ petition, having been filed without exhausting the said alternative remedy, is not maintainable. It was further submitted that the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity of hearing, and the damages were quantified by applying the rate of 25% as provided under Regulation 32A. Hence, according to the respondents, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the materials placed on record have been duly considered.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner defaulted in remitting the employees’

provident fund contributions and the payments were made belatedly. Section 14B of the Act, 1952 empowers the authority to recover damages from an employer who defaults in payment of any contribution under Section 6 of the Act. The authority is empowered to impose damages by way of penalty, not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be specified under the scheme.

6. Regulation 32A of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 prescribes a schedule of rates of damages depending upon the duration of default. In the present case, the duration of default is admittedly more than six months, for which the maximum rate of damages prescribed is 25% per annum.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1382 of 2014, deci