Madras High Court
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S. Sri.V.Balaji Spinning Mills India ... on 29 May, 2025
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 29.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 7381, 7825,7829, 7831 of 2021 and 31252 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos. 7889, 8345, 8347, 8350 of 2021
1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub-Regional Office, S.J.Plaza,
Swarnapuri,
Salem – 636 004. …Petitioner in WP No.7381/21,7825/21,
7829/21 & 7831 of 2021 and
Respondent in WP No. 31252 / 2022
2. M/s. The Erode District Cooperative
Spinning Mills Ltd,
Kolathupalayam,
Dharapuram Taluk,
Tirupur District – 638 661.
Rep. by its Liquidator …. Petitioner in WP No. 31252/2022
Vs.
1. M/s. Sri.V.Balaji Spinning Mills India Pvt. Ltd
RSF No. 135/5, Kiliampatti Road,
Mullamparappu, N.G.Palayam P.O.
Erode 638 115. ….Respondent in WP No.7381/2021
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
2. M/s. Erode District Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd
Kolathurpalayam, Dharapuram Taluk,
Tirupur District – 638 661.
Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Administrator. ….Respondent in WP No. 7825/2021
3. M/s. S402 Yercaud Hill Tribe Large
Sized Multi Purpose Co-operative Society,
Rep. by its President,
Jarinakadu, Yercaud
Salem District. ...Respondent in WP No. 7829/2021 & 7831/2021
Prayer in W.P.No. 7381 of 2021
To call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal order dated 24.10.2019 in EPFA No.536 of 2017 and
quash the order passed therein by issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and pass such further or
other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.
Prayer in W.P.No. 7825 of 2021
To call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal order dated 23.03.2020 in EPFA No. 165 of 2017 and
quash the order passed therein by issue of a Writ of Certiorari of any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and pass such further or
other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.
Prayer in W.P.No. 7829 of 2021
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
To call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal order dated 24.10.2019 in EPFA No. 476 of 2017 and
quash the order passed therein by issue of a Writ of Certiorari of any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and pass such further or
other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.
Prayer in W.P.No. 7831 of 2021
To call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal order dated 22.04.2020 in EPFA No.229 of 2018 and
quash the order passed therein by issue of a Writ of Certiorari of any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and pass such further or
other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit
Prayer in W.P.No. 31252 of 2022
To issue a Writ or any other Order or Direction more particularly in the nature
of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records made in EPFA
No.165/2017/A.T.A.No.134(13)/2012 dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai and quash
the same and to pass such further or other Orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Prayer in WMP No. 7889 of 2021 (in W.P.No.7381 of 2021)
To stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the Employees
provident fund Appellate Tribunal dated 24.10.2019 in EPFA No.536 of 2017
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Prayer in WMP No. 8345 of 2021 (in W.P.No. 7825 of 2021)
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
To stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the Employees
provident fund Appellate Tribunal dated 23.03.2020 in EPFA No.165 of 2017
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Prayer in WMP No. 8347 of 2021 (in W.P.No. 7829 of 2021)
To stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the Employees
provident fund Appellate Tribunal dated 24.10.2019 in EPFA No.476 of 2017
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Prayer in WMP No. 8350 of 2021 (in W.P.No. 7831 of 2021)
To stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the Employees
provident fund Appellate Tribunal dated 22.04.2020 in EPFA No.229 of 2018
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner
(in all WPs except
WP.No.31252/2022) : M/s. R.Meenakshi, V.Mohanapriya,
M.Suganya &A.Nambirajan, Advocates
For Petitioner in
WP No. 31252/2022 &
For Respondent in
WP No. 7825/2021 : M/s. Elanchezhian, K.Hemakarthikeyan,
L.P.Balajiram, S.Aalgu Sangeetha, &
M.E.Manirathnam, Advocates
For Respondent : No Appearance
In WP No. 7381/2021
4/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Raghavan, Advocate
in WP Nos. 7829/2021
and 7831/2021
For Respondent
in WP No.31252/2022 : Mr.Vishnu Ramu, Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.Since all the writ petitions arise from orders passed by the EPF
Tribunal in different appeals, but involve common questions of law, they were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
W.P.No.7825 of 2021 and W.P.No. 31252 of 2022
3.Both writ petitions challenge the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the
EPF Appellate Tribunal in EPFA No. 165 of 2017 (ATA No. 134(13)/2012),
whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Erode Co-operative
Spinning Mills and directed them to deposit 30% of the levy imposed by the
Provident Fund Department under order dated 29.06.2004, within a period of
two months. Aggrieved by this direction, the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Salem (RPFC), filed the present writ petition in W.P. No. 7825
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
of 2021.
4.The stand of the RPFC was that the respondent mill came under the
purview of the EPF Act with effect from 01.12.1990. However, it failed to remit
the statutory contributions within the prescribed time, and the remittances for
the period from October 1995 to June 2003 were made belatedly. Consequently,
a show cause notice dated 29.06.2004 was issued proposing the levy of interest
and damages. A personal hearing was afforded to the mill on 14.07.2004, and it
was also informed that failure to remit the dues would result in initiation of
recovery proceedings along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
5.The Co-operative Mill initially challenged the show cause notice-cum-
levy order by filing W.P. No. 8427 of 2004 before this Court. Upon dismissal of
the writ petition, they preferred Writ Appeal No. 2012 of 2011. By order dated
08.12.2011, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to the
mill to pursue its remedy before the EPF Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, an
appeal was filed in ATA No. 134(13)/2012 before the EPF Tribunal, New Delhi,
which was later transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
(CGIT), Chennai, and renumbered as EPFA No. 165 of 2017. Upon receipt of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
notice from the Tribunal, the RPFC filed a counter. After hearing both sides, the
Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 23.03.2020. The writ petition filed
by the RPFC challenging this order was listed along with two other connected
writ petitions and was admitted on 26.03.2021.
6.The Co-operative Mills contended that a liquidator had already been
appointed and that the Mill had been declared a relief undertaking by the
Government under G.O.Ms. No. 139, Handloom, Textiles and Khadi
Department, dated 05.07.1995. Further notifications extending the relief status
were issued on 18.07.1996, 17.07.1997, 18.07.1998, 15.07.1999, 18.07.2000,
18.07.2001, and 16.09.2002. On this basis, they sought to set aside the
Tribunal’s direction to deposit 30% of the levy amount. The Mill filed W.P. No.
31252 of 2022, and when it came up for admission on 23.11.2022, notice was
accepted by the standing counsel for the RPFC. The matter was then referred to
the National Lok Adalat scheduled for 14.12.2024; however, as no settlement
could be reached, it was posted back for final hearing.
7.The issue raised in these two writ petitions is no longer res integra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
This Court, in a batch of writ petitions beginning with W.P. No. 1239 of 2020,
by order dated 20.03.2025 (as modified on 09.04.2025), has already held as
follows:
“51. Regarding the levy of interest under Section 7Q, damages under
Section 14B, and the applicability of Regulation 32A of the EPF
Scheme, a Division Bench of this Court, in its decision in Writ
Appeal No. 1382 of 2014 dated 27.06.2023, in Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner v. Employees Provident Funds Appellate
Tribunal & Anr., has held as follows:
“8. A reading of Section 7-Q of the EPF Act, 1952 makes it
clear that interest will have to be paid by the Employer. The
word used in Section 14- B of the Act, 1952 is 'may' and the
discretion exercised by the EPFO Authority cannot be
mechanically interfered with by the Tribunal, unless reasons
given by the Authority are proper. In the light of Section 7L,
the Tribunal is empowered to reduce or completely waive the
damages that may be passed by the Original Authority. In
this case, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion and passed
the order. We have already made an observation in
W.A.No.2349 of 2022 dated 06.06.2023 that after
introduction and amendment of Section 7I of the Act, the
power of the Tribunal cannot be curtailed, as an appeal can
be filed before the Tribunal against the Board's decision.
Section 7I of the Act reads as follows:
"7-I. Appeals to Tribunal - "(1) Any person aggrieved
by a notification issued by the Central Government, or
an order passed by the Central Government or any
authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-
section (4), of section 1, or section 3, or sub-section (1)
of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
an application for review referred to in sub-section (5)
thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an
appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in
such form and manner, within such time and be
accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed."
9. It is pertinent to point out here that as per the provisions of
the EPF Act, 1952, the interest on the PF contribution is
mandatory. At the same time, in respect of levy of damages,
it is left to the discretion of the Authority to decide the
percentage of amount payable by the Employer. Of course,
such percentage will have to be decided based on the facts
and circumstances of each case. The schedule rate mentioned
in Regulation 32-A is only the Upper Limit and it does not
mean that the Authority or the Tribunal will have to
mechanically apply it”.
52. In light of these legal prepositions, the learned counsel for the
EPF Department sought to have the Tribunal's orders set aside,
arguing that they exceeded the legal limits applicable to the Appellate
Tribunal. However, Mr. P. Thangaraj, learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P. No. 18099 of 2020, representing a private party,
contended that the portion of the Tribunal's order which declined full
relief should be set aside. He argued that the Tribunal exercises
power under Section 7L of the EPF Act and not merely under the
provisions of the EPF Scheme. Furthermore, he submitted that the
petitioner in that writ petition, a cooperative spinning mill, was
entitled to relief from this Court, as the Tribunal had failed to grant
complete relief. In support of his argument, he relied on two
judgments of this Court—one by a Division Bench and another by a
Full Bench—which are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
“a. RH 153, Ramanathapuram District Co-operative Spinning
Mills Ltd Vs. Central Board of Trustees of Employee’
Provident Fund Organisation, W.A.(MD) Nos. 228 to 230 and
365 of 2011 dt. 7.3.2014
b. Sun Pressings (P) Ltd Vs. The Presiding Officer,
Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Core-II, New
Delhi & Ors. reported in 2024 (1) Writ LR 801”
53. However, the reasoning put forth by the learned counsel for the
EPF Department does not support the exercise of discretion by this
Court in reducing the levy of interest and damages. If the Tribunal
itself lacked such authority, this Court, under Article 226, cannot
interfere on the ground of alleged non-exercise of discretion by the
Tribunal. In the present case, the Tribunal, in all the impugned
orders, applied certain legal principles—many of which were
subsequently disapproved—and interfered with the authority’s orders
without providing any specific justification. In essence, all the
impugned orders are based on identical reasoning and do not contain
any case-specific rationale. At best, the orders appear mechanical,
applying legal principles erroneously. For these reasons, the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside.”
8.In view of the above, W.P. No. 7825 of 2021 filed by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner is allowed, and the impugned order dated
23.03.2020 passed by the Tribunal in EPFA No. 165 of 2017 is set aside.
Consequently, W.P. No. 31252 of 2022 filed by the Co-operative Spinning Mills
stands dismissed. W.M.P. No. 8345 of 2021 is also dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
W.P.No. 7829 and 7831 of 2021
9.In both writ petitions, the petitioners are the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner. The first writ petition challenges the order dated 24.10.2019
passed by the EPF Tribunal in EPFA No. 476 of 2017, while the second writ
petition challenges the order dated 22.04.2020 passed by the Tribunal in EPFA
No. 229 of 2018. The contesting respondents in both matters are multi-purpose
co-operative societies. Notice of motion in both writ petitions was ordered on
26.03.2021, along with another connected writ petition.
10.In the first writ petition, the respondent society challenged the levy of
damages before the Tribunal in EPFA No. 476 of 2017. While the Tribunal
upheld the levy, it granted partial relief by reducing the quantum to 60%
through its order dated 27.10.2019. The operative portion of the said order
reads as follows: –
“Accordingly the Respondent could have exercised its
discretion and imposed lesser amount to what has been
prescribed under 32A. Accordingly, the Impugned Order for
levying damage under 14B though found to be correct, the dues
determined is not proper and justified in the given facts and
circumstances of the case. So far as the Impugned Order under
7Q, remains unchanged as not appealable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
8. In the result, the dues determined under 7Q while warrants no
interference, as much as the Appellant has already remitted the
during the course of 14B proceedings, any order need not be
passed in this regard. The dues determined under 14B need
modification. Accordingly, the dues determined in the
Impugned Order under 14B is modified by reducing it to 60%.
The Appeal is allowed in part.
The Appellant is directed to deposit the modified amount of
(60%) i.e. Rs.1,48,590/- (Rupees One lakh Forty eight thousand
Five hundred Ninety only) in place of Rs.2,47,650/- vide
Impugned Order No. TN/SLM/SRO/PDC/25798/SAL-05/14B-
PROCEEDING dtd. 16.09.2014, before the Respondent within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of this order,
failing which the Respondent is at liberty to recover the same
under the process of law.”
11.In the second writ petition, the EPF Tribunal, while entertaining an
appeal filed by the same respondent society, again granted relief in respect of
damages levied under Section 14B. By its order dated 22.04.2020 in EPFA No.
229 of 2018 (signed on 24.04.2020), the Tribunal reduced the damages to 35%.
The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: –
“The Appellant while did not raise any dispute with regard to the
levy of dues towards damage by the Adjudicating Authority under
14B, an order of partial waiver, was prayed by the Learned
Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument in the
light of M/s.K.Streetlite Electric Corporation Vs. RPFC, Haryana,
2001 4 SCC 449.
10.In the result, the Impugned Order for levying damage under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
14B though found to be correct, the dues determined therein
cannot said to be proper and justified in the given facts and
circumstances of the case and needs modification. Accordingly,
the dues determined in the Impugned Order under 14B is modified
by reducing it to 35%.
The Appeal is allowed in part.
11.The Appellant is directed to deposit the modified amount
Rs.42,049/- (Rupees Forty two thousand Forty nine only) (35%) of
the dues determined in the Impugned Order
No.CB/SLM/SRO/PDC/25798/SLM-5/14B-PROCEEDING/2016
dtd. Nil 05/2016 before the Respondent within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the
Respondent is at liberty to recover the same under the process of
law.”
12.Both orders passed by the Tribunal are liable to be quashed, as the
Tribunal has no authority to unilaterally reduce the quantum of damages levied
by the statutory authorities based solely on its own ipse dixit. This Court has
already settled the issue in a batch of writ petitions beginning with W.P. No.
1239 of 2020 (cited supra), wherein it was held in paragraph 50 as follows: –
“50. The Supreme Court, in its decision in Horticulture Experiment
Station, Gonikoppal, Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund
Organization, reported in 2022 (4) SCC 516, held that the levy of
damages is an essential consequence of non-payment of EPF dues
and that the question of invoking mens rea as a necessary element for
imposing a penalty does not arise. It is pertinent to refer to the
following passage from paragraphs 13 to 17, which states as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
“13. 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.
14. The judgment on which the learned counsel for the
appellant(s) has placed reliance i.e. Employees State Insurance
Corporation(supra), the Division Bench in ignorance of the
settled judicial binding precedent of which a detailed reference
has been made, while examining the scope and ambit of Section
85B of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948
which is pari materia to Section 14B of the Act 1952 placing
reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in
Dilip N. Shroff (supra) held that for the breach of civil
obligations/liabilities, existence of mens rea or actus reus to be
a necessary ingredient for levy of damages and/or the quantum
thereof.
15. It may be noticed that Dilip N. Shroff(supra) on which
reliance was placed has been overruled by this Court in Union
of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and
others (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, the view expressed by
this Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation (supra)
may not be of binding precedent on the subject and of no
assistance to the appellant(s).
16. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) further placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Mcleod Russell India Ltd.
(supra), wherein the question emerged for consideration was as
to whether the damages which has been charged under Section
14B of the Act 1952 would be recoverable jointly or severally
from the erstwhile as well as the current managements. At the
same time, the judgment relied upon in Assistant Provident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
Fund Commissioner, EPFO and Another (supra) was decided
placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mcleod
Russell India Ltd. (supra), which may not be of any assistance
to the appellant(s).
17. Taking note of three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in
Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors
and others (supra), 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 14B of the Act
1952 and mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for
imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil
obligations/liabilities.”
13.In view of the above, both writ petitions are liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, W.P. Nos. 7829 of 2021 and 7831 of 2021 stand allowed, and the
impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 8347 and 8350 of
2021 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14.The writ petition has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner challenging the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the EPF
Tribunal in EPFA No. 536 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal granted relief to the
respondent by modifying the quantum of damages to 50%. The writ petition
was admitted on 08.04.2021, and notice was ordered in the accompanying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
W.M.P. on the same day. Although the respondent was duly served, they have
not entered appearance, either in person or through counsel.
15.The operative portion of the impugned order, wherein relief was
granted to the respondent, reads as follows: –
“Accordingly, the Impugned Order for levying damage under 14B
though found to be correct, the dues determined is not proper and
justified in the given facts and circumstance of the case. So far the
impugned order for recovery of interest remains unchanged as the
Appeal under 7Q is not maintainable in the eye of law.
9. In the result, the dues determined under 7Q while warrants no
interference as not appealable. The dues determined under 14B
needs modification. The dues determined in the Impugned Order
is reduced to 50% and modified accordingly.
The Appeal is allowed in part.
The Appellant is hereby directed to deposit the entire dues under
7Q of Rs.4,09,724/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Nine thousand Seven
hundred Twenty four only) vide Impugned Order No.
TN/SRO/SLM/PDC/96258/ED-1/7Q-PROCEEDING/2015 dtd.
29.06.2015 and further directed to deposit the modified amount of
(50%) i.e. Rs.3,40,343/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty thousand
Three hundred Forty three only) in place of Rs.6,80,687/- vide
Impugned Order No.TN/SLM/SRO/PDC/96258/ED-1/14B-
PROCEEDING/2015 dtd. 29.06.2015 before the Respondent
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this
order, failing which the Respondent is at liberty to recover the
same under the process of law.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
16.The exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in the impugned order is
unsupported by any legal reasoning. As noted earlier, in W.P. Nos. 7829 of 2021
and 7831 of 2021, similar orders passed by the very same Tribunal have already
been set aside. In line with those decisions, the present writ petition is also
liable to be allowed. Accordingly, W.P. No. 7381 of 2021 stands allowed, and
the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 7889 of 2021 stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17.In the result, W.P. Nos. 7381 of 2021, 7825 of 2021, 7829 of 2021,
and 7831 of 2021 are allowed. W.P. No. 31252 of 2022 stands dismissed.
Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 7889 of 2021, 8345 of 2021, 8347 of 2021, and
8350 of 2021 are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
29.05.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
To
1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub-Regional Office, S.J.Plaza,
Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004
2.EPF Appellate Tribunal (Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal)
Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.7381 of 2021 & batch
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
W.P.No. 7381, 7825,7829, 7831 of 2021
and 31252 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos. 7889, 8345,
8347, 8350 of 2021
29.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
