Dismissed¶¶30

Tamilnadu Grama Bank v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Damages under Section 14-B for delayed provident fund contributions

Madras HC4 Jun 2026WP/33961/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tamilnadu Grama Bank v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Madurai; WP No. 33961 of 2023 (Madras High Court, K. Surender J., 04-06-2026); EPF & MP Act 1952; Section 14-B damages for delayed PF contributions; Section 7-B review petition rejected; Section 7-I statutory appeal to Tribunal; alternative remedy; Tribunal now functioning; certiorari under Article 226 refused; writ dismissed with liberty to appeal; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed, with liberty to file an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act before the Tribunal. ¶¶30

Tamilnadu Grama Bank Vs the Regional Provident Fund… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 33961 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

WP No. 33961 of 2023 and WMP No.33847 of 2023

¶7

Tamilnadu Grama Bank Head Office, 6 Yercaud Road, Hasthampatti, Salem-636 007, Rep. by its General Manager.

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II EPF Organization, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Lady Doak College Road, Madurai-625 002.

¶11

Respondent

¶12

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in proceedings No.MD/MDU/11068/PDC/M72023 and quash his order, dated 15.09.2023.

¶13

For Respondent: Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

¶14

For Respondent: Mr.P.K.Panneer Selvam

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the

¶17

respondent, dated 15.09.2023 in No.MD/MDU/11068/PDC/M72023.

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 33961 of 2023

¶21

Aggrieved by the damages that were imposed for delayed Provident Fund contributions under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘Act’), the petitioner has filed a Review Petition under Section 7-B of the Act, which is rejected by the respondent as not valid vide order dated 15.09.2023, against which, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

¶23

available on record.

¶24

Insofar as any challenge to orders passed under Section 14B of the Act, the remedy lies under Section 7-I of the Act and such orders have to be appealed before the Tribunal. However, the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that The Tribunal was not functioning at the time when the Writ Petition was filed.

¶25