Madras High Court
M/S. Mandala Apparels Pvt. Ltd vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 29 May, 2025
W.P.No.8698 of 2021
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. 8698 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No. 9235 of 2021
M/s. Mandala Apparels Pvt. Ltd
No.1, All India Press Compound,
Kennedy Nagar,
Puducherry – 605 001
Rep. by its Managing Director …Petitioner
Vs.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II
No.101, 100 Ft. Road,
Sree Venni Commercial Complex,
Chollan Nagar, Olandaikeerapalayam,
Puducherry – 605 004. …. Respondent
Prayer in W.P.
To issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondent and quash
its order dated 15.05.2019 in proceedings No.TN/PDY/RO/PDC/PC/1538/Enf-
2/PROC/2019 (Damages) passed in terms of Section 14B of the EPF Act and
pass such further or other orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.8698 of 2021
Prayer in W.M.P.
To grant stay of the order of the Respondent dated 15.05.2019 in proceedings
no.TN/PDY/RO/PDC/PC/1538/Enf-2/PROC/2019 (Damages) pending disposal
of the writ petition and pass such further or other orders which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : Mr.Haroon Al Rasheed, Advocate
For T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocates
For Respondent : Mr.P.K.Panneer Selavam, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The petitioner, an apparel company, has filed the present writ petition
challenging the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner-II, Puducherry. By the said order, the Commissioner imposed
damages amounting to Rs. 8,23,075/- under Section 14B of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Although the petitioner
contended that the delay in remittance was unintentional and due to financial
losses, the authority rejected the explanation, noting that salaries had been paid
to employees during the relevant period and, therefore, the delay in deduction
and remittance of statutory dues could not be condoned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
3.Although the petitioner received the impugned order as early as 2019,
they chose to file the present writ petition challenging the same only on
31.03.2021. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner
has set out the reasons for the delay in paragraphs 7 and 8, which read as
follows: –
“7. I state as the Petitioner ceased to operate and since it was
facing litigations before the DRT and Income-tax authorities, it
was unable to challenge the order by way of an appeal under
Section 7(1) of the Act.”
“8. …….I state the Petitioner is conscious that this Hon’ble Court
does not have power to condone the delay under article 226 of
Constitution of India. However, this Hon’ble Court can exercise
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to call for the
records of the Respondent and issue a writ on satisfaction that the
order of the Respondent is not in consonance with the established
principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
well as in the various judgments of this Hon’ble Court are
furnished herein below: -
1.Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. HMT , 2008 (I) LLJ
814”
4.When the writ petition was listed for admission on 01.04.2021, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
Court ordered notice of motion and directed the respondent not to initiate
coercive action. The interim order was subsequently extended by orders dated
22.04.2021, 07.06.2024, 28.06.2024, 09.07.2024, 26.07.2024, and 01.08.2024.
Pursuant to notice, the respondent filed a counter affidavit (dated Nil,
September 2023), raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. It
was contended that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal
before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, with a prescribed limitation period of 60
days. The petitioner, having failed to avail the said remedy and having filed the
writ petition after a delay of 683 days, could not now seek relief under Article
226, and therefore the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
5.Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment
of this Court in Sun Pressings (P) Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Employees’
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Core II, New Delhi, reported in 2024
(1) Writ LR 801, and sought relief in terms of the principles laid down therein.
On the issue of maintainability and alternative remedy, reliance was also placed
on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishnan Industries v. State
of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771, particularly paragraph
27, which reads as follows: –
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
“27. The principles of law which emerge are that :
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs
can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental
rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High
Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the
aggrieved person; (2003) 2 SCC 107 PART C
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the
writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental
right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a
violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court
of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an
appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be
entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by
law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the
remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort
must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking
the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High
Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the
nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.”
6.Per contra, counsel for the EPFO relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. GlaxoSmithKline
Consumer Health Care Limited, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681, which,
according to him, squarely answers the issue involved in the present case. In
support of his contention, he referred to the following passages from
paragraphs 15 and 18 of the judgment, which read as follows: –
“15.From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear as crystal that the
Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of
India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, has ruled that there is no conflict of
opinion in Antulay case [A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2
SCC 602] or in Union Carbide Corpn. case [Union Carbide
Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584] with the principle
set down in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC
996. Be it noted, when there is a statutory command by the
legislation as regards limitation and there is the postulate that
delay can be condoned for a further period not exceeding sixty
days, needless to say, it is based on certain underlined,
fundamental, general issues of public policy as has been held in
Union Carbide Corpn. case [Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of
India, (1991) 4 SCC 584]. As the pronouncement in Chhattisgarh
SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 5
SCC 23, lays down quite clearly that the policy behind the Act
emphasising on the constitution of a special adjudicatory forum,
is meant to expeditiously decide the grievances of a person who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
may be aggrieved by an order of the adjudicatory officer or by an
appropriate Commission. The Act is a special legislation within
the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and, therefore,
the prescription with regard to the limitation has to be the binding
effect and the same has to be followed regard being had to its
mandatory nature. To put it in a different way, the prescription of
limitation in a case of present nature, when the statute commands
that this Court may condone the further delay not beyond 60
days, it would come within the ambit and sweep of the provisions
and policy of legislation. It is equivalent to Section 3 of the
Limitation Act. Therefore, it is uncondonable and it cannot be
condoned taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution.”
“18. Suffice it to observe that this decision is on the facts of that
case and cannot be cited as a precedent in support of an argument
that the High Court is free to entertain the writ petition assailing
the assessment order even if filed beyond the statutory period of
maximum 60 days in filing appeal. The remedy of appeal is
creature of statute. If the appeal is presented by the assessee
beyond the extended statutory limitation period of 60 days in
terms of Section 31 of the 2005 Act and is, therefore, not
entertained, it is incomprehensible as to how it would become a
case of violation of fundamental right, much less statutory or
legal right as such.”
7.Accordingly, learned counsel for the EPFO submitted that the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed. He further relied on the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station, Gonikoppal, Coorg v.
Regional Provident Fund Organization, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 516,
wherein the Court considered the scope of levy of damages under Section 14B
of the EPF Act. It was held that unintentional delay on the part of the employer
is not a valid ground to avoid liability and that the presence of mens rea is not a
prerequisite for the imposition of damages under the said provision.
8.In light of the foregoing, the writ petition is held to be misconceived
and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is 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
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II
No.101, 100 Ft. Road,
Sree Venni Commercial Complex,
Chollan Nagar, Olandaikeerapalayam,
Puducherry – 605 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
29.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
