Disposed¶24

M/s.Sri Ramalinga Mills Limited B Unit v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

Madras HC24 Jul 2025WA(MD)/2004/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sri Ramalinga Mills Ltd; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II Madurai; EPF Act 1952; Section 14(B) damages; Section 17(A) contribution; Tribunal conditional interim stay; deposit condition reduced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-; writ appeal disposed; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Clause 15 Letters Patent; W.A(MD)No.2004 of 2025; dated 24.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the Tribunal's conditional interim stay: deposit requirement reduced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-, to be remitted within two weeks; on compliance the interim stay continues till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶24

M/s.Sri Ramalinga Mills Limited B Unit Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the conditional interim stay order passed by the Tribunal (requiring deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-) should be modified, in view of the appellant's stated payment of the Section 17(A) contribution and of interest in installments.

¶23

Court's answer

Taking into account the bona fide conduct of the appellant, the Court modified the Tribunal's conditional order: the appellant undertakes to remit Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If the modified condition is complied with, the appellant will continue to enjoy the interim stay till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal.

¶23

Key takeaways

If the condition is not fulfilled, the benefit of the order will not enure in favour of the appellant.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) by M/s. Sri Ramalinga Mills Ltd “B” Unit against the order dated 17.10.2024 dismissing W.P(MD)No.4870 of 2022, whereby it had challenged a Tribunal conditional interim stay (deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-) granted while an order levying EPF damages under Section 14(B) of the EPF Act, 1952 was under appeal. G.R.Swaminathan and K.Rajasekar, JJ., noting learned counsel's statement that the Section 17(A) contribution stood paid and interest had been paid in installments, modified the Tribunal's condition: the appellant to remit Rs. 2,50,000/- within two weeks of receipt of the order; on compliance the interim stay continues till the Tribunal disposes of the appeal; on default the benefit does not enure. Writ Appeal disposed of accordingly; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. Dated 24.07.2025.

¶1

W.A(MD)No.2004 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶5

W.A(MD)No.2004 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.11601 & 11602 of 2025

¶6

M/s.Sri Ramalinga Mills Ltd “B” Unit, 1, Sayalgudi Road, Savvaspuram Village, Kulasekaranallur, Ramasamy Nagar, Aruppukottai – 626 105, Virudhunagar District, Represented by its General Manager.

¶7

... Appellant / Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002.

¶10

... Respondent / Respondent

¶11

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

W.A(MD)No.2004 of 2025

¶13

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 17.10.2024 in W.P(MD)No.4870 of 2022 on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.M.E.Ilango For Respondent : Mr.A.John Xavier

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

2.The appellant is an establishment covered by the EPF Act, 1952. There

¶19

was a delay in remitting the PF dues, which led to the issuance of an order levying damages under Section 14(B) of the Act. Challenging the said order, the establishment filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted an order of interim stay on condition that the appellant should deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). Challenging the said conditional order, the appellant herein filed W.P(MD)No.4870 of 2022. The learned single Judge vide order dated 17.10.2024 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the

¶20

same, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

¶21

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.A(MD)No.2004 of 2025

¶23

3.The learned counsel for the appellant states that the contribution payable under Section 17(A) of the Act has already been paid and the interest amount has also been paid in installments. Taking into account the bona fide conduct of the appellant, we modify the conditional order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant undertakes to remit Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the condition is complied with, the appellant will continue to enjoy the interim stay till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. If the condition is not fulfilled, the benefit of this order will not enure in favour of the appellant.

¶24

4.This Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 24.07.2025

¶26

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index MGA

¶27

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.A(MD)No.2004 of 2025

¶29

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

¶30

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶31

MGA

¶32

¶33

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002.

¶34

W.A(MD)No.2004 of 2025

¶35

24.07.2025

¶36

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s.Sri Ramalinga Mills Limited B Unit v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Ramalinga Mills Limited B Unit v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Prasath Vs The State represented

The Director General of Police Vs v.Selvam

The Director General of Police Vs v.Selvam

The Collector and Chairman Vs Ms Bhavadharani Builders

The Principal Secretary Corporation Vs S. Selvi

S.R.Muthuram Vs The Secretary to Government