Madras High Court
The Assistant Provident Fund ... vs The Presiding Officer on 7 October, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021
and
WMP.(MD)Nos.11389 & 14284 of 2021
WP.(MD)No.14426 of 2021
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office,
Chokkikulam,
Madurai-625002. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Employee’s Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,
C.G.I.T. cum Labour Court,
Chennai-600 006.
2.M/s.Peace Trust,
Trichy Road,
Dindigul,
Represented by its Chairman
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first
respondent, the C.G.I.T cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm )
WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021
in EPFA.433/2017 (ATA 858(13)/2014 dated 30.03.2021 and
quash the same by confirming the order passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai under Sec.
14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 in his proceedings No.TN/RO/MDU/
59846/M13/RO/PDC/LD/2014 dated 30.07.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Xavier
For R2 : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan
WP.(MD)No.17403 of 2021
M/s.Peace Trust,
Trichy Road,
Dindigul,
Represented by its Chairman
... Petitioner
Vs.
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Rep by its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office,
Lady Dock College Road,
Chokkikulam, Madurai-625002.
... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for
the records of order passed by the Central Government
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm )
WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai in EPFA No.
433/2017 dated 30.03.2021 by modifying the order passed by
the respondent in his order No.TN/RO/MDU/59846/
M13/RO/PDC/LD/2014 dated 30.07.2014 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan
For Respondent : Mr.A.John Xavier
COMMON ORDER
The EPF Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, by its order in EPFA No.433/2017 dated 30.03.2021, has modified the damages levied under Section 14B of the the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred as “EPF Act”]. Both the establishment as well as EPF authority have challenged the said order in WP.(MD)No.14426 of 2021 and WP.(MD)No.17403 of 2021 respectively. Since these writ petitions are arising out of the same order, both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will be referred to as per their status/ranking in W.P.(MD)No.14426 of 2021. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm ) WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/EPF authority submits that the second respondent/establishment is running a college of education and covered under EPF Act with code No.59846. They have also collected EPF contribution. However, they have failed to make payment to the EPF authority for the period from January 2011 to May 2013. Therefore, a proceedings was initiated under Section 14B of EPF Act and an opportunity was also provided to the second respondent/establishment. The employer was advised to appear before the enquiry authority for personal hearing, on 25.04.2024, by a notice dated 20.03.2014. However, none appeared from the establishment. Therefore, hearing was adjourned and posted to 02.06.2014 and it was also informed to the second respondent/establishment. Even, on the subsequent hearings on 02.06.2014 as well as on 04.07.2014 none appeared from the establishment and therefore, with the available materials, the authority come to a conclusion that the amount which has been collected as EPF from the employees have not been paid to EPF authority and therefore, damages have been levied as per Section 32(A) of EPF Scheme, 1952. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm ) WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/EPF authority also submits that the second respondent/establishment has preferred an appeal without assigning any reason and the same was also entertained by the tribunal in a mechanical manner on the ground that there was no actus reus or mens rea for the belated payment on the part of the second respondent / establishment. Further, the learned counsel for the EPF authority 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 in the impugned order are no 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.
4.The learned counsel for the second respondent/ establishment submits that the authority can impose a lessor 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm ) WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021 penalty than that has been prescribed in para 32(A) of EPF Scheme. However, maximum penalty has been levied by the authority. He further submits that the establishment is a educational trust running educational institutions by helping the society. However, without considering the same, the EPF authority has passed an order and the tribunal, instead of setting aside the order passed by the EPF authority, has modified it to pay 50% of the amount and therefore, they have challenged the same in WP.(MD)No.17043 of 2021.
5.This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
6.The second respondent establishment is covered under the provisions of the EPF Act. Admittedly the establishment has failed to make payment for the period from January 2011 to May 2013, and paid the amount belatedly. Therefore, proceedings were initiated under Section 14B of the EPF Act and several opportunities of hearing have also been provided to 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm ) WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021 the second respondent/ establishment, however, they have not utilized the same and therefore, orders were passed levying damages.
7.The establishment challenged it before the appellate tribunal. The EPF appellate tribunal has reduced the damages to 50% on the ground that there was no mens rea on the part of the second respondent for the belated payment of EPF contribution pertaining to the period from January 2011 to May 2013. The necessity of mens rea and actus reus has already been declared as not essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Vs Regional Provident Fund Organisation reported in (2022) 2 SCC 516 as under:
“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 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm ) WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021 Section 14-B of the 1952 Act and mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty / damages for breach of civil obligations / liabilities.”
8.In view of the above decision, the order passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in EPFA No.433/2017 dated 30.03.2021 is set aside and the writ petition filed by EPF authority in WP.(MD)No.14426 of 2021 is allowed and the writ petition filed by the establishment in WP.(MD)No.17403 of 2021 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.10.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm ) WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021 To The Presiding Officer, Employee’s Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, C.G.I.T. cum Labour Court, Chennai-600 006.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm ) WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021 B.PUGALENDHI,J gns WP.(MD)Nos.14426 & 17403 of 2021 07.10.2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 01:25:31 pm )