SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
The Assistant Provident Fund – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Q-510-Savariyarpattinam – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 04.11.2025

CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

and

WMP.(MD)No.271 of 2022 WP.(MD)No.7300 of 2022

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II,

Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

Regional Office,

No.1, Lady Doak College Road,

Chokkikulam, Madurai-625002 ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.M/s.Q-510-Savariyarpattinam Primary

Agricultural Co-Op.Credit Society,

Savariyarpattinam Post,

Kadaladi Taluk, Via Mudukulathur,

Ramanathapuram District-623703.

2.The Presiding Officer,

Employee’s Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,

C.G.I.T cum Labour Court,

Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for

the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent the C.G.I.T. cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in EPFA.238/2017 (ATA 478(13)/2013 dated 20.09.2021 and quash the same by confirming the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai under Sec.14B of the Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in his proceedings No.TN / RO / MDU / 29493/RO/M5 /

PDC/LD/2013 dated 13.05.2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Xavier For R1 : Mr.E.Marees Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel For R2 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader.

WP.(MD)No.349 of 2022 Q 510-Savariyarpattinam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, now called as Q 510 Savariyarpattinam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society rep.by its Secretary, Savariyarpattinam Po Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapram District 623703.

... Petitioner Vs.

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner/ Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Madurai 625002. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Chennai made in EPFA.No.

238/2017 dated 20.09.2021 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.P.Karthick

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed by the EPF authority and the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society as against the order passed by the EPF appellate Tribunal in EPFA.No.238/2017 dated 20.09.2021. Since these writ petitions are arising out of the same order, both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will be referred to as society and authority.

2.The society is covered under the provisions of the Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’] and allotted in TNMDU/ 29493. The authority has initiated a proceedings under Section 14B of the Act that the society has failed to remit the EPF contribution for the period from March 2004 to February 2010 in time and paid the same belatedly. Therefore, they have levied damages to the tune of Rs.2,19,481/-, by an order dated 29.05.2013. The society has filed appeal before the EPF appellate Tribunal under Section 7I of the Act. The Tribunal by the impugned order has reduced the amount of damages levelled under Section 14B of the Act to 50%.

3.Being not satisfied with this 50% reduction, the Society has filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.349 of 2022. The authority, on the other hand, aggrieved over this 50% reduction, has filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.7300 of 2022.

4.There was no representation for the society and therefore, this Court by its order dated 07.10.2025 has appointed Mr.E.Marees Kumar, learned counsel as Legal Aid Counsel for the society. The learned Legal Aid counsel submitted that the loans granted by the society were waived by the Government and it has not been reimbursed by the Government. Therefore, the society went on loss. In such circumstances, levying damages under Section 14B of the Act is not justified.

5.Learned counsel for the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top