Madras High Court
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S.I.P.Rings Ltd on 19 September, 2024
W.P.No.26971 of 2024
and W.M.P.No.29474 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.26971 of 2024
and W.M.P.No.29474 of 2024
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II (PDC),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office, Tambaram,
No.3, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 600 045. ... Petitioner
versus
M/s.I.P.Rings Ltd.,
D-11/12, Industrial Estate,
Maraimalai Nagar - 603 209,
Kanchipuram District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the
order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court and
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in EPFA
No.564/2018 dated 24.04.2023, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ilangovan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26971 of 2024
and W.M.P.No.29474 of 2024
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award of the learned
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court and Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in EPFA No.564/2018 dated 24.04.2023.
2. The above appeal has been filed by the respondent company
against the assessment of damages made under Section 14-B of the
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 dated
12.01.2016. The damages have been assessed at Rs.12,93,042/- for the
period from 03/2011 to 12/2014. But however, the Appellate Tribunal
thought it fit to reduce the damages so assessed and reduced it by 50% and
modified the same and ordered to pay the half of Rs. 12,93,042/-. Since the
respondent has already paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner in compliance of
the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 02.08.2019, the same has also
been ordered to be appropriated against 50% modified damages.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
scheme being a welfare scheme, no lenience can be shown to the defaulters
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and hence, the damages as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal are
unsustainable.
4. On perusal of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, it is seen
that the Appellate Tribunal has made an observation that the levying
damages for delayed remittance cannot be found fault, but however
indulgence has been shown in the quantum of damages by taking into
consideration that the respondent has remitted the interest of Rs.6,22,381/-.
The adjudicating authority in his order has not considered the said aspect.
Since the essential fact has lost sight of and that has impacted the
consideration taken up for quantifying the damages, the Appellate Tribunal
thought it fit to show some lenience.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision of
this Court in the case of The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs.
The Employees Provident Fund and Ors. reported in 2020 (1) CWC 234
wherein it is held that exercising the power of discretion cannot lead to
mechanical deduction of damages and such consideration has to be shown
in exceptional circumstances. But the case involved in the above judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would refer a drastic reduction of 17% damages to 5%. Since the reduction
almost equivalent to waiver the Court has made strong observation.
6. The other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Ramanathapuram District Co-operative Printing Works Limited Vs.
Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal reported in 2021 LLR 443,
wherein this Court has held that the delay could have been caused due to
various reasons but it is for the assessee to establish through evidence in
order to enable the authorities to take a lenient view. But the above findings
of the Court has to be read in the context of its own facts of the case.
7. Reliance was placed by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Vs. Provident Fund
Organization reported in (2022) 4 SCC 516 and the same applicable to its
own facts. There cannot be a straight jacket formula by assessing the mens
rea and it is for the authority concerned to look into the merits of the each
case and said exercise has only been done properly by the appellate
tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The appellate Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court in
Terrace Estates, Unit of United Plantation Ltd. Vs. APFC, Coimbatore
reported in 2010 LAB IC 252 and judgment of the Gujarat High Court in
Gandhidham Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. RPFC reported in 1987 1
LLN 813, wherein it is observed that the assessment of damages on the
upper limit is mechanical and not logical. Having found sound reasons for
reducing the damages, the Tribunal has chosen to reduce it to 50% and made
the modification. As the order of the Appellate Tribunal is well reasoned and
logical, I find no reason for interference.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.09.2024
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
sri
To
The Presiding Officer,
CGIT cum Labour Court and
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
sri
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
