Madras High Court
The Assistant Provident Fund ... vs The Presiding Officer on 18 September, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.13168 of 20121
and
WMP(MD)No.10165 of 2021
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road,
Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.
...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.M/s.Angingu Teacher Training Institute,
Anbu Nagar, Collectorate,
Dindigul. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order of the EPF appellate tribunal ie,
the 1st respondent in its order dated 24.07.2019 in
EPFA-253/2018(A(TN) 60/2016 and quash the same and confirm the
order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional
Office, Madurai under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm )
WP(MD)No.13168 of 2021
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in his proceedings NO.Tn/RO?
MDU/91784/M13/PDC/LD/2016 dated 23.05.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman
For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
No.2
ORDER
The petitioner / PF authority has filed this writ petition challenging
the order of the 1st respondent appellate tribunal dated 24.07.2019.
2.The 2nd respondent establishment is covered under the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provident Funds Act
[herein after shall be referred to as 'the EPF Act'] and it is also allotted
with PF.No.TN91784. The 2nd respondent establishment has not remitted
the EPF contribution for the period from October 2004 to May 2013 and
therefore, an enquiry was conducted and damages under Section 14B of
the EPF Act were also levied on the 2nd respondent to the tune of
Rs.4,93,919/- by order dated 23.05.2016. This order of the original
authority was challenged before the 1st respondent appellate tribunal and
the order of the original authority was modified by directing the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm )
respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,59,151/-. The appellate tribunal has
partly allowed the appeal that there is no mense rea or actus reus on the
part of the 2nd respondent establishment. Therefore, the petitioner has
filed this petition.
3.The requirement of mens rea has already been discussed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal
Vs Regional Provident Fund Organisation reported in (2022) 2 SCC
516 , wherein it has been has held as under:
“15.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.
19.Taking note of the three-Judge Bench judgment
of this Court in Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile
Processors, 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 14-B of the 1952 Act and mens rea or actus reus
is not an essential element for imposing penalty /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm )
damages for breach of civil obligations / liabilities.”
4.By reiterating the above, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in
Sun Pressing (P) Ltd represented by its the Managing Director, SIDCO
Industrial Estate, Madurai Vs. The Presiding Officer Employees'
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi reported in 2024-1- Writ.L.R.
801 has held as under:
“Therefore, levy of damages under Section 14-B of
the Act is not a criminal liability but a civil liability
arising out of a statutory obligation. In view of the
principles reiterated by several judgments distinguishing
the difference between criminal liability and the civil
liability for violation of statutory obligation and the
judgment in Horticulture Experiment
Station ,Gonikoppal, Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund
Organization, (2022) 4 SCC 516, we are bound to hold
that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential
requirement or sine quo non for levying penalty under
Section 14-B of the Act.”
5.In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, the findings of
the appellate tribunal that there is no element on the part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm )
respondent establishment for mens rea or actus reus cannot be a ground
to modify the order of the original authority. Therefore, the impugned
order is set aside. However, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to pay the
balance amount as claimed under Section 14B of the EFP Act, in six
equal monthly installments commencing from November 2025.
6.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
DSK
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.M/s.Angingu Teacher Training Institute,
Anbu Nagar, Collectorate,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm )
B.PUGALENDHI.J.,
DSK
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/09/2025 04:18:23 pm )
