Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
Santhome Latex Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Regional P.F Commissioner-II – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inspection revealed non-remittance; exemption claim rejected without hearing. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims violation of para 26b hearing; respondents defend order. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. para 26b mandates hearing by rpfc for employee membership disputes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. order quashed for natural justice breach; remitted with deposit condition. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
The petitioner, who is an employer, assails the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the second respondent underSection 7Aof theEmployees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the said order, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 30,72,131/- towards Employees’ Provident Fund contribution.
2.The second respondent conducted an inspection in the petitioner’s establishment on 05.04.2023 and found that the establishment was covered under the Act, but had failed to remit Employees’ Provident Fund, Employees’ Pension Fund, and Employees’ Deposit-Linked Insurance contributions, along with the administrative charges for EPF and EDLI, for the period from April 2016 to March 2023. For the purpose of determining the amount due from the petitioner under the Act and
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
