The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; the original authority's order dated 10.04.2012 and the appellate Tribunal's order dated 11.03.2013 set aside; matter remitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits after providing due opportunity to the respondent; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions (W.M.P(MD)Nos.21834 & 21837 of 2019) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate Tribunal was right in reducing the Section 14B damages from Rs.1,14,40,677/- to 5% per annum on the ground that the original authority had not taken into consideration that there was no mens rea on the part of the establishment. +1 more

Court's answer

The order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the original authority and the order of the appellate authority dated 11.03.2013 were both set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondent Mill had specifically pleaded that it was not provided ample opportunity to establish the reason for belated payment of contribution, the Court held that, in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted to the original authority instead of back to the appellate authority.

Key takeaways

The matter was remitted back to the file of the writ petitioner (original authority) for passing orders on merits and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity to the respondent.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 14B – Damages – Writ petition by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner challenging the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal's order (A.T.A.No.385(13) 2012, dt. 11.03.2013) reducing 14B damages from Rs.1,14,40,677/- to 5% per annum on the ground that the original authority had not considered absence of mens rea – Counsel for original authority invoked Full Bench ruling reported in 2024 (1) Writ Law Reporter 801 that mens rea is not an essential requirement for levy under Section 14B – Court noted the respondent Mill's specific plea that it was not afforded ample opportunity to establish the reason for belated payment of contribution – Held: instead of remitting to the appellate authority, in the interest of justice the matter be remitted to the original authority – Both the original authority's order dated 10.04.2012 and the Tribunal's order dated 11.03.2013 set aside – Matter remitted to original authority for fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity to the respondent – Writ Petition allowed; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 13.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

W.P.(MD)No.25249 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.21834 & 21837 of 2019

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, P.B.No.588, Sree Complex, 'D' Block, No.18, Madurai Road, Tiruchirapalli.

...Petitioner

Vs

M/s.Lakshmi Shanmuga Spinning Mills Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Namanasanmudram, Pudukkottai District.

...Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the order passed by the Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in A.T.A.No.385(13) 2012, dated 11.03.2013, and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : M/s.N.Dilip Kumar For Respondent : No appearance

1/4

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

ORDER

The original authority under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the appellate Tribunal, dated 11.03.2013, wherein the quantum of 14B damages has been reduced from Rs.1,14,40,677/- to 5% per annum, primarily on the ground that the original authority has not taken into consideration that there was no mens rea on the part of the establishment.

2.According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the original authority, the Hon'ble Full Bench in the judgment reported in 2024 (1) Writ Law Reporter 801 , has held that mens rea is not an essential requirement for levying penalty under Section 14B of the Act. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the order passed by the appellate Tribunal.

3.A perusal of the order passed by the original authority and the grounds raised before the appellate Tribunal disclose that the respondent Mill has taken a specific stand that they have not been provided with ample opportunity to establish the reason for the belated payment of the contribution amount. In such circumstances, instead of remitting the matter back to the appellate authority, in the interest of justice, the matter could be remitted to the original authority.

2/4

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

4.In view of the above said deliberations, the order dated 10.04.2012,

passed by the original authority and the order of the appellate authority dated 11.03.2013, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the writ petitioner for passing orders on merits and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity to the respondent.

5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

13.06.2025 1/2

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

3/4

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

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

RJR

To

The Presiding Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.

W.P.(MD)No.25249 of 2019

13.06.2025 1/2

4/4

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