Madras High Court
The Assistant Provident Fund ... vs The Presiding Officer on 18 September, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.13168 of 20121
and
WMP(MD)No.10165 of 2021
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road,
Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.
...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.M/s.Angingu Teacher Training Institute,
Anbu Nagar, Collectorate,
Dindigul. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order of the EPF appellate tribunal ie,
the 1st respondent in its order dated 24.07.2019 in
EPFA-253/2018(A(TN) 60/2016 and quash the same and confirm the
order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional
Office, Madurai under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm )
WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in his proceedings NO.Tn/RO?
MDU/91784/M13/PDC/LD/2016 dated 23.05.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman
For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
No.2
ORDER
The petitioner / PF authority has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent appellate tribunal dated 24.07.2019.
2.The 2nd respondent establishment is covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provident Funds Act [herein after shall be referred to as 'the EPF Act'] and it is also allotted with PF.No.TN91784. The 2nd respondent establishment has not remitted the EPF contribution for the period from October 2004 to May 2013 and therefore, an enquiry was conducted and damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act were also levied on the 2nd respondent to the tune of Rs.4,93,919/- by order dated 23.05.2016. This order of the original authority was challenged before the 1st respondent appellate tribunal and the order of the original authority was modified by directing the 2nd 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm ) WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021 respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,59,151/-. The appellate tribunal has partly allowed the appeal that there is no mense rea or actus reus on the part of the 2nd respondent establishment. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3.The requirement of mens rea has already been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Vs Regional Provident Fund Organisation reported in (2022) 2 SCC 516 , wherein it has been has held 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 the three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors, 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 14-B of the 1952 Act and mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty / 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm ) WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021 damages for breach of civil obligations / liabilities.”
4.By reiterating the above, 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 has held as under:
“Therefore, levy of damages under Section 14-B of the Act is not a criminal liability but a civil liability arising out of a statutory obligation. In view of the principles reiterated by several judgments distinguishing the difference between criminal liability and the civil liability for violation of statutory obligation and the judgment in Horticulture Experiment Station ,Gonikoppal, Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund Organization, (2022) 4 SCC 516, we are bound to hold that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential requirement or sine quo non for levying penalty under Section 14-B of the Act.”
5.In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, the findings of the appellate tribunal that there is no element on the part of the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm ) WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021 respondent establishment for mens rea or actus reus cannot be a ground to modify the order of the original authority. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. However, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to pay the balance amount as claimed under Section 14B of the EFP Act, in six equal monthly installments commencing from November 2025.
6.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.09.2025 Index : Yes / No DSK To
1.The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.
2.M/s.Angingu Teacher Training Institute, Anbu Nagar, Collectorate, Dindigul.
5/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm ) WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021 B.PUGALENDHI.J., DSK WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021 18.09.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm )