Dismissed¶47

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I v. M/S. Uniglass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2026WP/13386/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 14-B EPF Act damages; delayed payment of contribution; 50% backwages; reinstatement; Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court; EPF No.70/2017; order dated 26.11.2019; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I Bengaluru; Uniglass Industries Pvt Ltd; Sri H N Basavaraju; PF deposit 29.09.2003; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed without costs; Karnataka HC DB (D K Singh & T M Nadaf JJ.), 04-06-2026; NC: 2026:KHC:26438-DB.

What did the court decide?

Provident Fund contribution is on the wages drawn by the employee; since Sri. H N Basavaraju was out of employment from 1995 till 23.09.2003 and drew no wages from the respondent-Establishment, there was no question of making any PF contribution during that period. ¶43

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether damages under Section 14-B of the EPF Act were sustainably leviable on the respondent-Establishment for alleged delayed payment of provident fund contribution, given that the PF contribution is on wages drawn and the employee was out of employment and drew no wages until the Labour Court award. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

¶43

Ratio / Principle

There was no deliberate delay by the respondent-Establishment in making contribution of PF in the PF account of Sri. H N Basavaraju.

¶47

Key takeaways

As soon as the Labour Court passed the award, the respondent-Establishment made the PF contribution on the 50% back wages as awarded by the Labour Court.ratio¶47
The writ petition did not disclose any substance warranting interference with the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, which accordingly stands.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench: D K Singh and T M Nadaf JJ.; oral order per D K Singh J.) dismissed the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, EPF Organization, Bengaluru, challenging the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court's order dated 26.11.2019 in EPF No.70/2017, whereby the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of M/s Uniglass Industries Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the damages of order dated 12.08.2015 levied under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for delayed payment of contribution. Background: employee Sri. H N Basavaraju resigned on 10.11.1995; the Labour Court allowed his claim that the resignation was forcibly obtained, ordering reinstatement with 50% backwages less Rs.30,327./-; the Establishment paid the backwages and deposited PF of Rs.11,532/- in his PF account on 29.09.2003. Holding that the provident fund contribution is on the wages drawn by the employee; that the workman was out of employment from 1995 till 23.09.2003 and drew no wages, so no PF contribution was called for; and that there was no deliberate delay, the contribution having been made as soon as the Labour Court award was passed, the Court found no substance in the petition, declined interference and dismissed the writ petition without costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26438-DB WP No. 13386 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 13386 OF 2021 (L-PF)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, NO.570, 26^TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME COOP SOCIETY LAYOUT, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY MS. NANDITA D HALDIPUR., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

M/S. UNIGLASS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SY NO.125/1B, 111/1C, 129/1C, NEAR KSRTC DEPOT, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.N.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26438-DB WP No. 13386 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CASE FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2019 PASSED IN CASE PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT ANNEXURE - D.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶24

and

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶28

The Employees Provident Fund Organization is before

¶29

us in this writ petition impugning the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court in EPF No.70/2017 instituted by the respondent - Establishment against the order passed by the EPF -Petitioner under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as the "EPF Act").

¶30

The Commissioner vide order dated 12.08.2015 levied damages against the respondent-Establishment on

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26438-DB WP No. 13386 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

delayed payment of contribution in respect of one of their employees.

¶34

One employee, Sri. H N Basavaraju had

¶35

resigned from services of the respondent - establishment on 10.11.1995. Subsequently, he challenged his resignation by filing claim petition before the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, contending that his resignation was forcibly obtained on 16.11.1995 by the respondent - Establishment.

¶36

On contest, the Labour Court allowed the claim petition of the said employee, directed the Management of the respondent-establishment to reinstate the workman with 50% backwages by deducting an amount of Rs.30,327./- which he has received from the Management.

¶37

This 50% of the amount as directed by the Labour Court was paid to Sri. H N Basavaraju and on the said amount, PF amount of Rs.11,532/- was also

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26438-DB WP No. 13386 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

deposited in the PF account of Mr. Basavaraju on 29.09.2003.

¶41

Considering the aforesaid fact that there was no delay in making contribution on 50% back wages as awarded by the Labour Court and therefore, the provisions of Section 14-B of the EPF Act could not have been invoked for imposing damages. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Regional provident Commissioner imposing the damages vide order dated 12.08.2015 under Section 14-B of the EPF Act.

¶42

We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court.

¶43

The Provident Fund contribution is on the wages drawn by the employee. Sri. H N Basavaraju was out of employment from 1995 till 23.09.2003. There was no question of making any contribution of PF by the

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26438-DB WP No. 13386 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

respondent-establishment inasmuch as, Mr. H.N.

¶47

Basavaraju was not drawing any wages/salary from the respondent - Establishment. Therefore, we are of the view that there was no deliberate delay by the respondentEstablishment in making contribution of PF in the PF account of Sri. H N Basavaraju. As soon as the Labour Court passed the award, the respondent-Establishment made the contribution on 50% back wages as awarded by the Labour Court. We therefore, do not find any substance in this petition to interfere with the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court and the same stands dismissed , however, without costs.

¶48

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶49

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶50

BSV/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I v. M/S. Uniglass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I v. M/S. Uniglass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Suresh Chandra Guptha Vs the State of Karnataka

Idbi Bank Ltd. Vs Sri U Shankarappa

Idbi Bank Ltd. Vs Sri Suresh

Unicorn Denmart Limited Vs Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Mr C K Harsha Vs M/S Mahadeshwara Bricks

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Vs Dattaprasad Co. Operative Housing Society Limited