Dismissed¶110

M/S.Jaisakthi Matriculation School v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Madras HC25 Feb 2025WP/587/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, pronounced 25.02.2025) dismissed W.P.No.587 of 2020 filed by M/s. Jaisakthi Matriculation School, Dharmapuri, challenging a Section 7A EPF assessment of Rs.24,40,392/- dated 16.04.2019 and the EPF Appellate Tribunal's 13.11.2019 dismissal of its appeal as limitation-barred (124 days' delay against a 60-day limit); the Court held the Section 7A order free of infirmity and that, the statutory appeal having attained finality, the assessment order cannot be challenged under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner: W.P. No. 587 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos. 687 and 689 of 2020 dismissed; authorities at liberty to recover the outstanding dues after duly crediting the amounts already deposited under the interim order; no order as to costs. ¶110

M/S.Jaisakthi Matriculation School Vs Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 10.2.2025

¶4

Pronounced on : 25.2.2025

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶7

W.P.No. 587 of 2020

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.Nos. 687 & 689 of 2020

¶10

M/s. Jaisakthi Matriculation School, Rep. by its Correspondent, P.K.Sekar, Kartharapatti, P.N.Halli (PO), Palacode (TK), Dharmapuri – 636 808.

¶11

…Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, S.J.Plaza, Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004.

¶14

…Respondent

¶15

1/13

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶18

Prayer in W.P.No. 587 of 2020

¶19

To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or any Order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the impugned order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in EPFA No.222 of 2019 dated 13-11-2019 and the Proceedings bearing Ref.No. CB/SLM/COMPII/90190/KNG III Dn/2019 dated 16-04-2019 issued by the Respondent under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

¶20

Prayer in W.M.P.No. 687 of 2020

¶21

To dispense with the original order dated 16-04-2019 in the Proceedings CB/SLM/COMP-II/90190/KNG III Dn/2019 issued by the Respondent.

¶22

Prayer in W.M.P.No. 689 of 2020

¶23

To stay the impugned order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in EPFA No.222 of 2019 dated 13-11-2019 and recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent based on his proceedings bearing Ref. No.CB/SLM/COMP-II/90190/KNG III Dn/2019 dated 16-04-2019 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

¶24

Appearance of Parties:

¶25

For Petitioner : M/s. P.Thangaraj and Kamaraj, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. P.K.Panneer Selvam, Panel Advocate for EPFO

¶26

2/13

¶27

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

W.P.No.587 of 2020

JUDGMENT

Heard.

The writ petitioner, a matriculation school in Dharmapuri, has filed the

¶32

present petition challenging the order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai) in EPFA No. 222/2019, dated 13.11.2019, by which the appeal was dismissed as

¶33

barred by limitation.

¶34

When the writ petition was taken up for admission on 10.01.2020, the

¶35

standing counsel for the Respondent entered an appearance, and the matter was directed to be listed after four weeks. In the meantime, an interim stay was granted,

¶36

subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10 lakhs within

¶37

four weeks. When the case was subsequently heard on 25.02.2020, the petitioner

¶38

informed the Court that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs had been paid to the Respondent

¶39

through a Demand Draft dated 14.02.2020 and filed a memo seeking an extension 3/13

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶42

of four weeks to remit the balance amount of Rs.7 lakhs. Accepting the request, the

¶43

Court extended the time for payment by four weeks, stipulating that failure to comply would result in the automatic vacation of the stay.

¶44

The Respondents filed a counter affidavit dated 31.12.2021. The

¶45

petitioner contends that the school was established in 2004. Initially, with classes up to the 6th standard, the institution had 12 staff members, which later increased to 20 by 2012. On 05.04.2017, the Respondent issued a notice under Section 7A, demanding contributions under the Provident Fund Scheme and computing the amount payable for the period from 2012 to 2017. The enquiry commenced on 28.04.2017, during which the petitioner submitted all relevant registers and the balance sheet. The petitioner was duly represented by an authorized representative throughout the proceedings.

¶46

On 16.04.2019, the Respondent issued an order assessing the dues

¶47

payable by the school for the period from November 2012 to March 2017,

¶48

4/13

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶51

amounting to Rs.24,40,392/-, which included contributions for both teaching and

¶52

non-teaching staff. As the said amount remained unpaid, the Respondent initiated proceedings for the sale of the school's properties under Section 8B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 7A by filing an appeal before the EPF Tribunal. However, by order dated 13.11.2019, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of an abnormal delay of 124 days in filing, stating that, as per the prescribed time limit of 60 days, it lacked the power to condone any delay beyond that period.

¶53

Before the appeal could be disposed of, the petitioner approached this

¶54

Court by filing W.P. No. 35643 of 2019, challenging the Respondent's order dated 16.04.2019. However, this Court, by order dated 02.01.2020, dismissed the writ

¶55

petition, granting the petitioner permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to

¶56

file a fresh one with an appropriate prayer. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition, challenging not only the Tribunal’s order dated 13.11.2019 but also

¶57

the Respondent’s order dated 16.04.2019.

¶58

5/13

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶61

In the counter affidavit, the Respondent stated that the school's employment strength in June 2004 was 38, and after a detailed inquiry, the number of non-teaching staff was also ascertained. Based on the Enforcement Officer's report, it was determined that the dues payable for 25 teaching staff from November 2012 to March 2017 amounted to Rs.12,87,202/-, while the dues for 17 non-teaching staff for the same period totaled Rs.11,53,190/-, bringing the total liability of the school management to Rs.24,40,392/-. The Respondent contended that the order issued under Section 7A was legally valid and did not suffer from any infirmity.

¶62

The counsel for the petitioner relied on the Constitution Bench judgment

¶63

of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86) and the Division Bench judgment in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner (CT) Appeals, Chennai & Ors. (MANU/TN/1256/2021) to argue

¶64

6/13

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶67

that the authorities had not followed the proper procedure in assessing the dues

¶68

payable, rendering the order legally infirm.

¶69

In the present case, the petitioner school had filed a statutory appeal

¶70

before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on the ground of delay. Consequently, the Respondent’s order attained finality, raising the question of whether the petitioner can now challenge its validity without first setting aside the Tribunal’s order. In support of their stance, the Respondents, in their counter affidavit, relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Q-793, Madathupatti Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai & Ors. , reported in 2003 (3) LLJ 795 (Mad), emphasizing the following passage from the judgment:

¶71

“9. As far as the determination under Section 7-A of the Act is concerned, it is seen that the provision comprises two parts. Firstly, the authority has to decide whether the Act applies to the establishment and secondly, he has to determine the amount due from the employer. For the purpose of this determination, the officer has to conduct such

¶72

7/13

¶73

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

¶74

A of the Act shows that the officer conducting the inquiry has to decide

¶75

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶76

inquiry as deemed necessary. A reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 7- A of the Act shows that the officer conducting the inquiry has to decide the issue as if he is trying a suit in a civil Court with powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. The inquiry shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings. Sub-section (3) shows that no order shall be made under Sub-section (I), unless the employer concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. Sub-section (3) empowers the officer to compel the attendance of the person concerned or the production of documents to decide the applicability of the Act or determination of the amount due from the employer. From the reading of these provisions, it is clear that no order under Section 7-A of the Act can be passed without conducting a full-fledged inquiry as if the matter is decided in a suit and that the officer determining the question has to decide both the coverability as well as the determination of the amount.”

¶77

Based on the above reasoning, the learned counsel contended that the Respondent’s order does not suffer from any infirmity. In support of this argument,

¶78

reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar

¶79

8/13

¶80

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

¶81

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶82

Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers (MANU/SC/1464/2022). This

¶83

case, which arose under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, dealt with a similar

¶84

question, and the Court made the following observations in paragraphs 21 and 22:

¶85

“21. ……..The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the

¶86

laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant.

¶87

22………. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning.”

¶88

9/13

¶89

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

¶90

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶91

The learned counsel further contended that, having filed a statutory

¶92

appeal and allowed it to be dismissed due to latches, the petitioner cannot now seek

¶93

relief under Article 226. In this context, reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith

¶94

Kline Consumer Health Care Limited , reported in 2020 (19) SCC 681, wherein the

¶95

Court observed as follows:

¶96

“18. ……The remedy of appeal is creature of statute. If the appeal is presented by the assessee beyond the extended statutory limitation period of 60 days in terms of Section 31 of the 2005 Act and is, therefore, not entertained, it is incomprehensible as to how it would become a case of violation of fundamental right, much less statutory or legal right as such.”

¶97

The learned standing counsel also referred to the judgment of the

¶98

Bombay High Court Division Bench in Siddhi Engineering v. Regional Provident

¶99

Fund Commissioner-II , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 44, and relied on the following passages from paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment:

¶100

10/13

¶101

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

¶102

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶103

“12… if the Writ Petitioner chooses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days (120 days in case before us), the High Court cannot disregard the limited statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the Writ Petition of such party as a matter of course, only because the appeal before the CGIT is barred by limitation. It is further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that ‘doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of the three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ONGC Vs. Gujarath Energy Transmission Corporation, (2017) 5 SCC 42’.

¶104

13. Considering the above, since the Petitioner has approached this Court beyond the period of 120 days, effectively with a delay of 24 months there beyond, we would not be justified in entertaining this Writ Petition in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada (supra).”

¶105

In view of the foregoing discussions, it is evident that the Respondent’s

¶106

order dated 16.04.2019, passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act, does not suffer

¶107

11/13

¶108

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

¶109

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶110

from any infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, since the petitioner allowed the Tribunal’s order in the statutory appeal to attain finality, they cannot now seek to challenge the original order of the authorities through a writ petition under Article 226. Consequently, W.P. No. 587 of 2020 stands dismissed. The Miscellaneous Petitions in WMP. Nos. 687 and 689 of 2020 are also dismissed. The authorities are at liberty to recover the outstanding dues from the petitioner, after duly crediting the amounts already deposited under the interim order of this Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 25.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No av Copy to: The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, S.J.Plaza, Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004. 12/13

¶111

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

¶112

W.P.No.587 of 2020

¶113

DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶114

¶115

Pre-delivery Judgment in W.P.No. 587 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos. 687 & 689 of 2020

¶116

25.02.2025

¶117

13/13

¶118

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 13.11.2019 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in EPFA No.222 of 2019 dismissing the petitioner's statutory appeal as barred by limitation (abnormal delay of 124 days against the prescribed 60-day limit, with no power to condone), together with the underlying Section 7A assessment order dated 16.04.2019 (Ref. CB/SLM/COMPII/90190/KNG III Dn/2019) assessing dues of Rs.24,40,392/-.¶52
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai); Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Salem · 13.11.2019 (Tribunal order); 16.04.2019 (Section 7A order)
Prior proceeding
Respondent issued a notice under Section 7A on 05.04.2017 demanding PF contributions and computing the amount payable for 2012 to 2017; enquiry commenced 28.04.2017, during which the petitioner submitted registers and balance sheet and was represented by an authorised representative.¶45
Prior proceeding
Assessment order dated 16.04.2019 issued under Section 7A determining dues payable by the school for November 2012 to March 2017, amounting to Rs.24,40,392/- including contributions for teaching and non-teaching staff.¶46
Prior proceeding
As the assessed amount remained unpaid, the Respondent initiated proceedings for the sale of the school's properties under Section 8B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act.¶52
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed a statutory appeal (EPFA No.222 of 2019) before the EPF Tribunal against the Section 7A order; the Tribunal dismissed it on 13.11.2019 solely on the ground of a 124-day delay against the 60-day prescribed limit, stating it lacked power to condone delay beyond that period.¶52
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 35643 of 2019 challenging the Respondent's order dated 16.04.2019; this Court dismissed it on 02.01.2020 granting permission to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh petition with an appropriate prayer.¶54
Prior proceeding
On admission (10.01.2020) an interim stay was granted subject to deposit of Rs.10 lakhs within four weeks; the petitioner paid Rs.3 lakhs by Demand Draft dated 14.02.2020 and obtained a four-week extension to remit the balance Rs.7 lakhs, failing which the stay would automatically stand vacated.¶36
Prior proceeding
Respondents filed a counter affidavit dated 31.12.2021 stating the employment strength, the Enforcement Officer's report and the computation of dues, and contending that the Section 7A order was legally valid.¶44

Cite this judgement

M/S.Jaisakthi Matriculation School v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, WP/587/2020 (MAD), decided on 25 February 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited7

State of U.P. v. Mohammad NoohReferred¶63
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner (CT) Appeals, Chennai & Ors.Referred¶63
Q-793, Madathupatti Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai & Ors.Referred¶70

View all cases cited

Statutes3

Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Section 7A
Employees' Provident Funds ActSection 8B
Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history8

Order dated 13.11.2019 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in EPFA No.222 of 2019 dismissing the petitioner's statutory appeal as barred by limitation (abnormal delay of 124 days against the prescribed 60-day limit, with no power to condone), together with the underlying Section 7A assessment order dated 16.04.2019 (Ref. CB/SLM/COMPII/90190/KNG III Dn/2019) assessing dues of Rs.24,40,392/-.Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai); Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Salem · 13.11.2019 (Tribunal order); 16.04.2019 (Section 7A order)
Respondent issued a notice under Section 7A on 05.04.2017 demanding PF contributions and computing the amount payable for 2012 to 2017; enquiry commenced 28.04.2017, during which the petitioner submitted registers and balance sheet and was represented by an authorised representative.
Assessment order dated 16.04.2019 issued under Section 7A determining dues payable by the school for November 2012 to March 2017, amounting to Rs.24,40,392/- including contributions for teaching and non-teaching staff.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete

Parties & counsel

M/S.Jaisakthi Matriculation School v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Jaisakthi Matriculation School v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Kali Detective and Security Bureau Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -Ii

The Management of C.S.I. Rainy Hospital Employees Vs T.Rajeswari

The Management Vs Smt. G.Vijaya

The Management Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

D.Stephen Unnimon Vs The Management

Tamilnadu Private Professional Colleges Vs P.Ganesh