BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 10.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

W.P(MD)No.14342 of 2021 and

WMP(MD) No.11284 of 2021

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,

Employees' Provident Fund Organization,

Regional Office,

Chokkikulam,

Madurai – 625 002. ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The Presiding Officer,

Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,

C.G.I.T Cum Labour Court,

Chennai 6.

2.M/s. Dhanalakshmi Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director D.Muthusamy,

No.1, Dhanalakshmi Mills Quarters,

Vilampatti, Nilakottai,

Dindigul 624219. ...Respondents

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 1st respondent

the C.G.I.T, cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in EPFA-262/2018 (A.T.A.No./TN-A-71-2016) dated 01.04.2021, 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 proceeding No.TN/RO/MDU/20181/M011/

PDC/LD/2016 dated 19.07.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Xavier For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.Jerin Mathew

O R D E R

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees'

Provident Fund Organization, Madurai has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal in EPFA-262/2018 (A/TN.-71/2016), dated 01.04.2021, in and by which, the Presiding Officer of the Employee’s Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Chennai has reduced the damages levied on the second respondent herein, under Section 14B of Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, from Rs.4,84,689/- to Rs.2,18,110/- and directed the second respondent Establishment to deposit the same.

2.The second respondent Establishment, namely, M/s.Dhanalakshmi Paper Mills Pvt Ltd., is covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and it was allotted with EPF code No. TN/20181. The second respondent Establishment remitted the EPF contribution for the period July 2010 and July 2011 to April 2013 belatedly. Therefore, the Assistant PF Commissioner has initiated an enquiry and passed an order, levying damages on 19.07.2016 and the same was challenged by the respondent Establishment, by way of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in EPF Appeal.No.262 of 2018. The EPF Authority, by its order dated, 01.04.2021, has partly allowed the appeal, modifying the damages levied under Section 14 B of the Act, to an extent of 45% i.e. Rs. 2,18,110/- and directing the Establishment to pay a sum of Rs. 2,18,110/- instead of Rs.4,84,689/- and the same is under challenge in this writ petition.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner EPF Authority submits that the Appellate Tribunal has modified the order on the following grounds:-

(a) Since mensrea or actus reus being a necessary ingredient for levy of damage and /quantum thereof, the respondent was obliged to consider the circumstances, under which, delay occurred in remittance of the statutory contribution.

(b) The Adjudicating Authority, though cannot waive the damage in toto in view of 32B of the Scheme, could have imposed lesser amount to what has been prescribed under 32A.

(c)Section 14B of the Act itself speaks ‘may recover’ which necessarily speaks that adjudicating authority has got a discretion to exercise its powers in the special circumstances considering the financial position of the Establishment.

3.1.According to the learned Counsel, the Appellate Tribunal has failed to consider that the second respondent Establishment had not remitted the Provident Fund dues, within the stipulated period as mentioned in the Scheme and failure on the part of the second respondent Establishment in remitting the statutory dues, within the stipulated time, attracts levying of damages, under Section 14B of the Act. Ther