BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN W.A.(MD) No. 185 of 2026 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization Sub-regional office BhavishyaNidhi Bhavan NGO 'B' Colony Tirunelveli - 627 007. ...Appellant/Petitioner Vs

1. The Presiding Officer, The Employees Provident Funds Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi.

2. The Sibaflor Natural Decorations Private Limited, (Formally Known as M/s.W.Hogewoning Dried Flowers Industries Pvt., Ltd.,)

2/101-2/108, Ettayapuram Road, A.Kumarapuram, Melamaruthur, Kurukuchalai, Tuticorin - 628 722.

rep. by its Director. ... Respondents/Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.9911 of 2012 dated 12.10.2022 by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman For R1 : Presiding Officer For R2 : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The Commissioner of Regional Provident Fund is the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.9911 of 2012 dated 12.10.2022, the present intra-court appeal is filed with a substantial delay of 356 days. This Court, when the application for condoning the delay came up for consideration, allowed the application for condoning the delay vide order dated 06.02.2026 taking note of the fact that the dispute involved in the matter relates to imposing damages for belated payment of contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which requires legal scrutiny in view of the diverging views.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the levy of penalty under Section 14B of the Act, on account of the belated payment of provident fund contribution, was the subject matter of the writ petitions filed by various organizations at various point of time and therefore, the issue was referred to the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court for consideration. The Three Judges Bench of this Court in W.P. (MD) No.7339 of 2013, etc., vide order dated 03.06.2024 has formulated the guidelines for imposing damages for belated payment and also interest on the damages ascertained.

3. Referring to the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant insisted that if at all there are any mitigating circumstances to waive or move off the interest portion, it has to be done only by the process contemplated in the judgment. The Authority has to test whether there are any real mitigating circumstances while exercising power under Section 14B of the Act and pass orders assigning reasons for assessing quantum of damages and while passing orders, the present conduct of the employer should be taken note of.

4. The learned counsel, particularly, submitted that if the employer is a chronic defaulter despite having surplus funds and is found to have diverted the funds, there shall be no concession on imposing damages or interest on the damages.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Institution submitted that the order impugned in the writ appeal was passed before the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Full Bench. However, the principle laid in the Full Bench judgment has been adopted and followed by the learned Single Judge in spirit and incidentally, the learned Single Judge also forms part of the Full Bench.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the dispute regarding the levy of damages and interest arose when the proceedings of the Commissioner of Provident Fund were initiated on 03.02.2012. The writ petition was disposed of with direction that the second respondent/Institution shall pay 10% of the damages for the said period of belated payment. Due to the financial constraint, the second respondent/Institute has already been bound up and it is