IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)

RESERVED ON : 29.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE W.P.No. 8698 of 2021 and W.M.P.No. 9235 of 2021 M/s. Mandala Apparels Pvt. Ltd No.1, All India Press Compound, Kennedy Nagar, Puducherry – 605 001 Rep. by its Managing Director …Petitioner Vs.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II No.101, 100 Ft. Road, Sree Venni Commercial Complex, Chollan Nagar, Olandaikeerapalayam, Puducherry – 605 004. …. Respondent Prayer in W.P.

To issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondent and quash its order dated 15.05.2019 in proceedings No.TN/PDY/RO/PDC/PC/1538/Enf- 2/PROC/2019 (Damages) passed in terms of Section 14B of the EPF Act and pass such further or other orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Prayer in W.M.P.

To grant stay of the order of the Respondent dated 15.05.2019 in proceedings no.TN/PDY/RO/PDC/PC/1538/Enf-2/PROC/2019 (Damages) pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such further or other orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Appearance of Parties:

For Petitioner : Mr.Haroon Al Rasheed, Advocate For T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocates For Respondent : Mr.P.K.Panneer Selavam, Advocate

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.The petitioner, an apparel company, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Puducherry. By the said order, the Commissioner imposed damages amounting to Rs. 8,23,075/- under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Although the petitioner contended that the delay in remittance was unintentional and due to financial losses, the authority rejected the explanation, noting that salaries had been paid to employees during the relevant period and, therefore, the delay in deduction and remittance of statutory dues could not be condoned.

3.Although the petitioner received the impugned order as early as 2019, they chose to file the present writ petition challenging the same only on 31.03.2021. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has set out the reasons for the delay in paragraphs 7 and 8, which read as follows: –

“7. I state as the Petitioner ceased to operate and since it was facing litigations before the DRT and Income-tax authorities, it was unable to challenge the order by way of an appeal under Section 7(1) of the Act.”

“8. …….I state the Petitioner is conscious that this Hon’ble Court does not have power to condone the delay under article 226 of Constitution of India. However, this Hon’ble Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to call for the records of the Respondent and issue a writ on satisfaction that the order of the Respondent is not in consonance with the established principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as in the various judgments of this Hon’ble Court are furnished herein below: -

1.Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. HMT , 2008 (I) LLJ

814”

4.When the writ petition was listed for admission on 01.04.2021, this Court ordered notice of motion and directed the respondent not to initiate coercive action. The interim order was subsequently extended by orders dated 22.04.2021, 07.06.2024, 28.06.2024, 09.07.2024, 26.07.2024, and 01.08.2024. Pursuant to notice, the respondent filed a counter affidavit (dated Nil, September 2023), raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. It was contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, with a prescribed limitation period of 60 days. The petitioner, having failed to avail the said remedy and having filed the writ petition after a delay of 683 days, could not now seek relief under Article

226, and therefore the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

5