Partly allowed

M/S.a 2979 Thirumohur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd., v. the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

Madras HC25 Sept 2025WP(MD)/10785/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cooperative bank failed to pay EPF contributions from March 2012 to December 2016; the authority levied Rs.7,13,265/- as damages. The appellate tribunal reduced the damages by 55%. Both sides challenged that order in writ petitions. The High Court found the bank's financial-crisis plea unsubstantiated, upheld the original damages order, dismissed the bank's petition, allowed the EPF authority's

What did the court decide?

Bank's writ petition dismissed; EPF authority's petition allowed; impugned Tribunal order set aside; original Section 14B damages order dated 05.06.2018 sustained; payment in six equal monthly install

M/S.a 2979 Thirumohur Primary Agricultural… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.8418 of 2021

¶7

in WP(MD)No.10785 of 2021

¶8

M/s.A 2979 Thirumohur Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thirumohur Post, Othakadai Via Madurai District, rep by its Secretary ...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Lady Doak College, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai in EPFA No.634/2018 dated 20.04.2021 by modifying the order passed by the respondent in his order No.TN/RO/MDU/41293/Cir-40/PDC/LD/2018 dated 05.06.2018 and quash the same.

¶12

1/8

¶13

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

¶14

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.A.John Xavier

¶16

in WP(MD)No.20797 of 2022

¶17

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Lady Doak College, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002.

¶18

...Petitioner

¶19

¶20

M/s.A 2979 Thirumohur Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thirumohur Post, Othakadai Via Madurai District, rep by its Secretary ... Respondent

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the CGIT cum EPF appellate Tribunal, Chennai in EPFA No.634/2018, dated 20.04.2021 and quash the same by confirming the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 vide his proceedings No.TN/RO/MDU/41293/Cir/PDC/LD/2018 dated 05.06.2018. For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Xavier

¶22

For Respondent : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Thirumohur Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thirumohur failed to pay the EPF contribution for the period March 2012 to December 2016. Therefore, the EPF authority levied damages of Rs. 7,13,265/- for the belated payment of EPF contribution. The petitioner bank has filed an appeal under Section 7 I of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act [in short 'the EPF Act'] before the EPF Tribunal and the same was partly allowed by the appellate tribunal by reducing 55% of the damages levied by the EPF authority. Therefore, as against the orders of the appellate tribunal, directing the bank to pay 45% of the damages, the petitioner bank filed WP(MD)No.10785 of 2021. Aggrieved over the orders of the appellate tribunal in reducing 55% of the damages the EPF authority has filed WP(MD)No.20797 of 2022.

¶28

2.Since both these writ petitions are arising out of the same order,

¶29

these writ petitions are tagged together and disposed of by this common order.

¶30

3/8

¶31

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

¶32

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022

¶33

3.The learned counsel for the EPF organisation submits that the appellate tribunal in its order held that the order of damages passed by the EPF authority is just and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, has found fault with the EPF authority for not applying the principle of mens rea and actus reus as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs HMT Ltd and Another reported in AIR 2008 SC 1322 and in the case of the APFC Vs Management of RSL Textiles India Pvt Limited reported in 2017 3 SCC 110. The Appellate Tribunal has also come to the conclusion that the petitioner bank is facing certain financial crisis. He further submits that the findings of the appellate tribunal on the necessity for mens rea and the actus reus as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above are not longer good law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Vs Regional Provident Fund Organisation reported in (2022) 2 SCC 516 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities.

¶34

4/8

¶35

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

¶36

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022

¶37

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner bank submits that due to

¶38

the financial crisis faced by them they could not pay the contribution and by referring to the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sun Pressing (P) Ltd represented by its the Managing Director, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Madurai Vs. The Presiding Officer Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi reported in 2024-1- Writ.L.R.801 submits that the similar order passed by the appellate tribunal reducing 50% of the damages has been challenged and by considering the intervening circumstances for the loss of the society, this Court has fully waived the damages modified by the appellate tribunal to 50%.

¶39

5.This court has considered the rival submissions.

¶40

6.In this case the petitioner bank has claimed certain financial

¶41

difficulties for not paying the EPF contribution in time, however it has not been substantiated by them before the EPF authority. The reply has been given to the notice under Section14B of the EPF Act, which reads as under:

¶42

5/8

¶43

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

¶44

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022

¶45

“v';fs; fld; r';fk; tptrha nrit r';fk; yhg nehf;nfhL bray;glhky; nritf;F Kd; chpik mspj;J muR eyj;jpll';fs; epiwntw;wp tUfpnwhk; ; fLk; twl;rp fhuzkhf v';fs; nythnjtp btFthf Fiwe;J tpl;lJ/ ,e;epiyapy; v';fs; epWtdk; muR rhh;e;j epWtdk; vd;gjhy; murpd; cjtp fpilf;f fhyjhkjk; Vw;gLtjhy; chpa fhyj;jpy; rk;gsk; vLf;f kpFe;j rpuk';fSf;F ,ilna jtiz Kiwapy; rk;gsk; bgWfpd;wdh;/ j';fSf;F brYj;j ntz;oa tl;oia jtiz Kiwapy; brYj;Jfpd;nwhk;/ mjw;F jh';fs; fUiz Th;e;J mDkjp mspf;Fk; goa[k. muR rhh;e;j kw;Wk; ; eypt[w;w epWtdk; vd;gjhy; ,e;j damage y; ,Ue;J tpyf;F mspf;Fk; goa[k;. tptrhapfSf;F bjhlh;e;J nrit bra;jpl bjhlh;e;J r';fk; bray;gl cjtp

¶46

g[hpa[khW gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/ .”

¶47

7.From this vague reply, it cannot be found that the petitioner bank

¶48

was facing loss due to the waiver of loan announced by the government and there is no reference about the period for which loan was waived and the details of the payment made by the government. The authority can levy damages as per the scheme framed under the Act. In the absence of any materials, the authority cannot be found fault for levying damages. The authority has also provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner

¶49

6/8

¶50

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

¶51

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022

¶52

bank. This court has also passed orders in similar issue in WP(MD)No. 13168 of 2021, dated 18.09.2025.

¶53

8.In view of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain the petition filed by Thirumohur Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thirumohur. Accordingly WP(MD)No.10785 of 2021 is dismissed. The petition filed by the EPF organisation in WP(MD)No.20797 of 2022 is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The order of the EPF authority dated 05.06.2018 is hereby sustained. The petitioner bank is directed to pay the damages in six equal monthly installments commencing from November 2025. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

25.09.2025

DSK

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Lady Doak College, Chokkikulam, Madurai – 625 002.

¶58

7/8

¶59

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

¶60

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022

¶61

B.PUGALENDHI.J.,

¶62

DSK

¶63

WP(MD)Nos.10785 of 2021 and 20797 of 2022