The Assistant Provident Fund v. The Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)No.9773 of 2016 The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, P.B.No.588, Sree Complex, D Block, No.18, Madurai Road, Trichirapalli. ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minor, Core II, 4th Floor, Lakshminagar District Centre, Lakhsminagar, New Delhi.

2. M/s.GhCL Ltd, Salty Division and Refinery, Kadinel Vayal Post, Vedaraniyam, Rep. Through its Senior Manager.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in A.T.A.No.916(13) 2012 dated 14.03.2013 and quash the same as 1/4

unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the damages as Ref No. SDC/TN/76306/CIRCLE-32/SRO-TRY/2012 dated 19.10.2012 within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Robert Chandrakumar.I., For Respondents : No Appearance

O R D E R

The EPF authority has filed this petition as against the order passed by the appellate tribunal in A.T.A.No.916(13) 2012, dated 14.03.2013.

2.The above said appeal was filed by the second respondent as against the damages levied by the EPF Authority for the delay in payment of contribution under Section 14(B) of the EPF Act. The authority has levied a sum of Rs.5,19,109/- as damages under Section 14(B) of the Act and a sum of Rs.2,82,343/- towards the interest under Section 7(Q) of the Act. As against the portion of the damages imposed under Section 14(B) of the Act, the establishment has preferred the above appeal and the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal that there is no wilful delay on the part of the establishment. However, there is no discussion and reasonings as to whether it is wilful default or due to unavoidable 2/4

circumstances, there was a delay in making the payment. 3.Though notice has been served on the second respondent and name has been printed in the cause list, none appeared for the second respondent.

4.Admittedly, the second respondent establishment has paid the contribution belatedly for the period between December 2011 to January 2013. In the absence of any reasoning, the findings of the Tribunal that there is no wilful default cannot be accepted. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is set aside. 5.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 19.10.2024 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR 3/4

B.PUGALENDHI , J.

LR 19.10.2024 4/4