Case Law Details
Sri Bhagavathi Textiles Limited Vs Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court granted limited relief to the petitioner by permitting payment of damages imposed under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in 18 equal monthly instalments. The damages related to the period February 2001 to December 2004. The Court noted that the original Section 14B order had been restored by a Division Bench, making the petitioner liable to pay the assessed amount, following which a recovery notice was issued. Since the petitioner sought only instalment facility and not interference with the liability, the Court directed that the first instalment be paid on or before 04-07-2026, with subsequent instalments due on the 4th of every succeeding month. Coercive recovery proceedings were stayed during compliance, while any default would entitle the EPFO to resume recovery in accordance with law.
The Kerala High Court allowed a company to pay EPF damages levied under Section 14B in 18 equal monthly instalments after the original order imposing damages had been restored and a recovery notice was issued. As the petitioner sought only instalment relief, the Court directed payment of the first instalment by 04-07-2026 and the remaining instalments on the 4th day of each succeeding month. All coercive recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance to facilitate payment. However, the Court clarified that any default in an instalment would permit the authorities to proceed with recovery in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is before this Court seeking limited relief. The petitioner suffered Ext.P2 order imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the period from February 2001 to December 2004. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The Appellate Authority set aside Ext.P2 order, and that order of the Tribunal was upheld in a writ petition filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation. However, a Division Bench of this Court through Ext.P5 judgment restored Ext.P2 order of the Original Authority, and thereby the petitioner became liable for the damages imposed vide Ext.P2. Ext.P6 notice has now been issued to the petitioner for recovery of the amounts determined as payable by the petitioner under Section 14B of the Act.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only seeking a direction to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in instalments.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation also.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, and considering the limited nature of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition will stand disposed of, permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts payable by it in terms of Ext.P2 and in respect of which Ext.P6 notice has now been issued in 18 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 04-07-2026. The subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 4th day of the succeeding months. In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondents shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with the law. In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Author Bio
