The Regional Provident Fund ... vs /
2025 Latest Caselaw 7540 Mad

Madras High Court

The Regional Provident Fund ... vs / on 6 October, 2025

Author: Anita Sumanth

Bench: Anita Sumanth

                                                                                             W.A.(MD)No.2847 of 2025

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 06.10.2025

                                                           CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
                                                    AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                               W.A.(MD)No.2847 of 2025
                                             & C.M.P.(MD)No.15909 of 2025

                     The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
                     Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
                     No.18, Madurai Road,
                     Triuchirapalli.                                                      ...Appellant

                                                                /Vs./

                     M/s.J.J College Engineering and Technology,
                     Rep. Through its Principal of the Institution,
                     Ammapeetai,
                     Trichy – 620 009.                                                    ...Respondent

                     PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to
                     set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.25252 of 2019, dated
                     01.04.2025 on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.


                                    For Appellant        : Mr.N.Dilipkumar




                     1/5




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 10:58:59 am )
                                                                                         W.A.(MD)No.2847 of 2025

                                                       JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

This writ appeal is filed by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, challenging imposition of costs under order dated

01.04.2025.

2. Since no adverse order is proposed to be passed in this writ

petition, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

3. By way of brief background, the Respondent, a College of

Engineering and Technology, had suffered an order dated 19.08.2014,

whereunder the appellant had levied damages under Section 14B of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

('Act') for delayed remittance of PF dues. The appellant allowed that

order to attain finality and it was not challenged for five years till

WP(MD)No.25252 of 2019 was instituted. Hence, the writ petition

suffered from delay and laches, which ultimately came to be viewed

leniently by the Court upon imposition of terms of Rs.25,000/-.

4. On merits, the learned Judge found that the order dated

19.08.2014 ought to be set aside and remanded the matter to the Central

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 10:58:59 am )

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, for reconsideration.

As far as the setting aside of the order is concerned, no appeal has been

filed by the respondent and only the appellant is before us questioning

the imposition of costs.

5. Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel, who appears for the

appellant would specifically draw our attention to the observations at

para 9 of the impugned order, where the learned Judge has opined that

the necessity for the imposition of costs is to compensate the respondent

for the prejudice caused for the delay in filing the writ petition.

6. According to the appellant, there has been no prejudice

caused to the respondent and hence, the question of putting the appellant

to terms did not arise.

7. We disagree, and do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the

learned Judge putting the appellant to terms. We agree that the belated

institution of the writ petition would have caused prejudice to the

respondent, as respondent was lulled into a sense of security, believing

that order dated 19.08.2014 had attained finality.

8. To be noted that the damages levied under the order under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 10:58:59 am )

Section 14B of the Act was to the tune of Rs.37,73,565/-. Hence, the

institution of the writ petition in 2019 after a period of five years would

certainly have come as a bolt from the blue and should the appeal of the

respondent ultimately be decided adverse to it, there would be a huge

liability that would fall on the respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, this

writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

                                                                           [A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,]
                                                                                 06.10.2025
                     NCC      :Yes/No
                     Index    :Yes/No
                     Internet :Yes
                     sm









https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 10:58:59 am )




                                                                  DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
                                                                                 AND
                                                                     C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

                                                                                               sm




                                                                             Order made in





                                                                                         Dated:
                                                                                     06.10.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 10:58:59 am )