The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Tiruchi, for the inordinate delay of five years in filing a petition challenging the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
The court was hearing the petition filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of EPFO, Tiruchi. The Area Enforcement Officer of the PF Department inspected a private school in Nagapattinam district and submitted a report stating that the school had not remitted the PF contribution in a proper manner and that the contribution had been calculated only on basic salary, excluding allowances.
Based on the report, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order under Section 7A of the EPF Act, determining the contribution payable by the school at ₹42.99 lakh. The order was challenged by the school before the EPF Appellate Tribunal.
In 2014, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the authority had not considered the objections raised by the establishment. It further held that the authority had not passed a reasoned order and that the enforcement officer’s report did not identify the beneficiaries. Aggrieved over the order, the PF Authority filed the petition in 2019.
Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that the objections of the school were duly considered and a reasoned order was passed. The Tribunal’s order is liable to be set aside, the court said.
It further observed that the Tribunal’s order was passed in 2014, whereas the present petition was filed in 2019, after a lapse of five years. Ordinarily, such delay would constitute a valid ground to reject the petition.
However, in the present case, the subject matter related to PF contributions of employees, and dismissal of the petition on the ground of delay would result in serious prejudice to their statutory rights. The PF authorities were under a bounden duty to ensure that the funds were duly secured and credited to the workmen. Hence, the court was inclined to condone the delay, though not without consequences.
The court said the PFO was well-equipped with a full-fledged legal wing and adequate administrative infrastructure. Whenever an employer delayed remittance of contributions, the authorities imposed damages under Section 14-B of the EPF Act, read with Paragraph 32-A of the EPF Scheme.
The same principle of accountability must apply to the authorities themselves when there was a delay in pursuing legal remedies, the court observed and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the EPFO.
The court directed that the sum be paid from the funds of the department and recovered from the officers responsible for the delay. The amount recovered should be remitted along with the dues recovered from the employer and disbursed to the eligible employees, the court directed.
Published – November 25, 2025 09:46 pm IST
