[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Central Board Of Trustees Employees ... vs M/S. Afsons Industrial Corporation ... on 9 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:910
18-wp-14215-2017.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.14215 OF 2017
SHABNOOR The Central Board of Trustees
AYUB
PATHAN Employees PF Organisation Through
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
The Assistant PF Commissioner (Legal) ... Petitioner
Date: 2026.01.09
19:06:29 +0530 V/s.
M/s. Afsons Industrial Corporation Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. Sandeep R. Mishra a/w Ms. Madhura Mulay, for
the petitioner.
Ms. Sneha Prabhu a/w Mr. Nikhil Mutha, Ashwini
Sonawane, i/b M/s. Nanu Hormasjee & Co., for the
Respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 9, 2026
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 24 May 2016. This
order was passed by the Presiding Officer of the Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi in Appeal ATA No.728(9)/2011.
The petitioners say that this order is wrong on law and facts. They
want the Court to interfere.
3. The order in dispute was passed under Section 14B of the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. This
provision deals with the power of the authorities to impose
damages when an employer delays payment of provident fund
contributions. The purpose of damages is to discourage delay and
18-wp-14215-2017.doc
protect the interest of employees. When an authority uses Section
14B, it has to consider the facts of each case and then decide the
amount of damages.
4. A reading of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal
relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of System
and Stamping and Another vs. Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal and Others reported in (2008) 2 LLJ 939 . In
that case, the Delhi High Court had examined how Section 14B
should be applied. The Tribunal treated that judgment as a guiding
source for deciding damages. The reasoning of the Tribunal mainly
flows from this judgment.
5. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court has considered this
issue in Civil Appeal No.6592/2014, Central Board of Trustees vs.
Roma Henny Security Services Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court noted
that the Delhi High Court had not considered clause 32A of the
Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Because of this, the
Supreme Court set aside the judgment and sent the matter back to
the Delhi High Court to reconsider. The petitioners argue that once
the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment relied upon by the
Tribunal, the basis of the impugned order has disappeared. They
say the Tribunal must now decide the issue of damages under
Section 14B without relying on the Delhi High Court judgment.
6. It is not in dispute that the judgment in System and
Stamping has been set aside by the Supreme Court. Once the
Supreme Court has taken that step, the reasoning of that judgment
cannot support the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the Tribunal must
18-wp-14215-2017.doc
reconsider the matter. The Tribunal will have to decide damages
under Section 14B by applying the correct legal position and by
examining the facts on record. In view of these facts, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
7. The order dated 9 March 2017 passed by the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.ATA737(9)/2015
is set aside.
8. The matter is sent back to the CJIT, Mumbai, to reconsider
the question of damages under Section 14B of the Act. The
authority will give fresh consideration as per law and evidence.
9. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
