EPFO challenged the EPF Appellate Tribunal's order reducing Section 14B damages on an employer to 25% for want of mens rea. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and Full Bench guidelines, the High Court set aside the Tribunal order and remitted the appeal to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for fresh disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
The Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund Organisation through its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Regional Office Lady Doak College Road Chokkikulam Madurai-2 ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.M/s.Puliampatti PACB Ltd., Palani
2.The Presiding Officer Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition 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 second respondent herein in his proceedings bearing A.T.A.No. 574(13)2012, dated 19.08.2014 and set aside the same and confirm the order
________________ Page 1 of 11_
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in his proceedings No.TN/RO/MDU/4152/RO/Circle 13/PDC/LD dated 06.06.2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem
For Respondents : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam for R1 No appearance for R2
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2014, passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in A.T.A.No.574(13)2012, whereby the learned Appellate Tribunal interfered with the proceedings of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Madurai, bearing No.TN/RO/MDU/41592/RO/circle13/PDC/LD/2012, dated 29.05.2012 and reduced the damages imposed on the second respondent under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, “the Act, 1952”) to 25%.
2. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 19.08.2014, would disclose that the learned Appellate Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai, has not applied
Page 2 of 11
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
his mind while imposing damages under Section 14B of the Act, 1952 and also having come to the conclusion that there was no mens rea on the part of the second respondent in delaying the remittance of the provident fund dues, came to the conclusion that the second respondent cannot be made liable for paying damages, but instead made him liable to compensate the loss caused due to the delay in remittance of the provident fund dues and accordingly, reduced the compensation to the tune of 25%.
3. Existence of mens rea is not a condition precedent for imposing damages under Section 14B of the Act, 1952. This aspect of the matter is now well settled and no more res integra . The Honourable Apex Court, in the case
of Horticulture Experiment Station vs. Provident Fund Organisation,
reported in (2022) 4 SCC 516 , has decided the issue once for all. Paragraph Nos.15 and 19 of the said decision read read as under:
“15.Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject, it is well- settled that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities.
19. Taking note of three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile
________________ Page 3 of 11_
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
Processors [(2008) 13 SCC 369, which is indeed binding on us, we are of the considered view that any default or delay in the payment of EPF contribution by the employer under the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B of the Act 1952 and mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities.
4. A Full Bench of this Court also having taken note of the above
said decision of the Honourable Apex Court, by a common Judgment dated 03.06.2024, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.7339, 9688 of 2013, 2765 & 2782 of 2014, laid down certain guidelines in the matter of deciding the liability under Section 14B of the Act, 1952. Paragraph No.39 of the said decision reads as under:
39.Therefore, following the principles reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and different High Courts including our High Court in similar circumstances, this Court hold that Section 14-B of the Act is an enabling provision and it does not envisage any compulsion to levy damages in all cases, and is inclined to frame the following guidelines:-
(i) Before levying damages in terms of Section 14-
B of the Act, every authority is required to
________________ Page 4 of 11_
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
follow principles of natural justice. The particulars of the default, period, etc., and every adverse information that may be relied upon for levying damages should be indicated or furnished to the employer and a fair opportunity should be given to the employer to put forth his case in defence to the proposed action.
Page 5 of 11
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
industry and the employees, there cannot be a levy of damages.
(v) The authority under the Act has to consider all the mitigating circumstances including financial difficulties projected by the employer and pass a reasoned order.
Page 6 of 11
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
(ix) There may be variety of circumstances to which the employer is put to while managing an industrial establishment or a factory within the purview of the Act. The proviso to Section 14-B gives a special power to the Board to waive damages when a rehabilitation scheme is pending before the BIFR. There may be similar circumstances for the employer of any industry to save the industry from the clutches of private/public financial institutions and the employer might be facing proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Whenever the employer is forced to make huge amounts by mobilizing funds from other resources to save the industry from closure or to avoid similar situations, such payment need not be considered as an act to avoid payment of provident fund dues.
The delay in payments by profit making establishments has to be seriously viewed and every profit making employer is bound to pay the provident fund contributions promptly, unless there are strong reasons or circumstances that prevent the employer from making the payment on the due dates. If there is an element of willful negligence in payment of Provident Fund dues, the Assistant
(x)
Page 7 of 11
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
Provident Fund Commissioner or the competent authority can levy damages exercising his discretion.
(xi) Though mens rea is not an essential ingredient, there cannot be levy of damages at the maximum limit merely because there is a default. Before levying damages, there must be definite finding or reason, after considering the explanation or reasons given by the employer for the delay in payment of dues and other mitigating circumstances. The discretion vested with the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner or the competent authority shall be exercised judiciously in tune with the settled principles of law and keeping in mind the interest of the employees concerned.”
5. In the light of the above, the order impugned in the present writ petition cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration by duly taking into consideration the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Horticulture Experiment Station (cited supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, which are extracted supra.
________________ Page 8 of 11_
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
6. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that
the Appellate Tribunal, namely, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal has been abolished and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, situated at First Floor, B-Wing, No.26 Haddows Road, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai – 600 006, has been established for the purpose of deciding the appeals filed against the orders passed under Section 14B of the Act, 1952.
7. In the light of the above, the matter is remanded back to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for deciding the matter in A.T.A.No. 574(13)2012 afresh by duly taking into consideration the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Horticulture Experiment Station (cited supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, which are extracted supra.
8. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Page 9 of 11
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
9. It is open to the either side to make available the relevant records before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by reconstruction of the files, if necessary, for the expeditious disposal of the matter as directed above.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
06.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
krk
Note to Office: Mark a copy of this order to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, situated at First Floor, B-Wing, No.26 Haddows Road, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai – 600 006.
To:
The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
________________ Page 10 of 11_
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.8290 of 2016
06.02.2025
Page 11 of 11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether mens rea is a condition precedent for imposing damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act and whether the Tribunal's reduction of damages to 25% could stand.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Horticulture Experiment Station vs. Provident Fund OrganisationRelied on¶5
(2022) 4 SCC 516 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile ProcessorsReferred
(2008) 13 SCC 369 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund Organisation through its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Madurai
M/s.Puliampatti PACB Ltd., Palani
The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
