1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.7577 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 Viswabharathi Textiles (P) Ltd., rep by its Managing Director, Mr.R.Subramanian Vadamadurai, Dindigul, Dindigul District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minor, Core-II, 4th Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092. 2.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Madurai-625 002. 4.The Branch Officer, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, 9,Salai Road, Dindigul, Dindigul District. .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the first respondent in No.ATA No.347 (13) 2006 and to quash the order dated 22.07.2010 passed therein in relating to damages and interest. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandra Bose For Respondents : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for RR2 and 3 Mr.Pala Ramasamy for R-4 ORDER The petitioner is a Textile mill. In the present case, they are seeking to challenge an order passed by the EPF Tribunal, i.e., the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent made in ATA No.347 (13) 2006, dated 22.07.2010 and seeks to set aside the same relating to levy of damages and interest. 2.The writ petition when it came up on 8.7.2011 for admission, this court had ordered notice. Accordingly, the second and third respondents are represented by Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, the learned Standing Counsel and that the fourth respondent is represented by Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel. 3.The Tribunal by its order dated 22.7.2010 had rejected the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 7-I challenging the levy of damages and interest. It was the contention of the petitioner that there was shortage of raw materials leading to an huge loss and the workers also went on strike. Hence the amounts have not been paid on time. These circumstances were not considered by the authority. But the tribunal held that the financial problem was a common problem. A reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (1998) 2 SCC 242, wherein it was held that the power cut, financial problem relating to other indebtedness or delay in realization of amount paid by cheque or draft are not relevant consideration to avoid the liability for payment of dues. In the earlier order, dated 25.4.2006, the authority held that despite demand, the amount has not been credited. Even the moneys collected from the employees' salary were not credited to the PF account on due days. Though the petitioner had obtained an order from this court in the year 2005 to pay the amount in installments, the question of damage was not considered in the said judgment and the delay was deliberate. Therefore, the damages was liable to be levied. 4.In the grounds of appeal, the petitioner only contended that the mill became a sick industry and it was referred to B.I.F.R. But there is no reference about any rehabilitation scheme framed by the B.I.F.R. Therefore, even the limited relief that can be granted in terms of second proviso to Section 14B is not applicable to the petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner. 5.In the counter affidavit filed by the second and third respondents, it was stated that financial crisis cannot be a ground for denial and that the levy of damages and interest is the natural consequence to deliberate delay in payment. In respect of interest, no concession can be shown and for the damages, it depends upon the nature of delay committed. 6.Though the petitioner attempted to rely upon the judgments of Supreme Court and various High Courts, i.e. (1) Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. H.M.T. Ltd. and another reported in 2008 (1) LLN 491 (Supreme Court), (2)Systems and Stamping and another Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and others reported in 2008 (5) LLN 266 (Delhi High Court) and (3) Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 2010 (III) LLJ 807 (Kerala High Court), those judgments have no relevance to the case on hand. Therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition merely on the ground that the petitioner mill was facing financial problem. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.In view of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minor, Core-II, 4th Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092. 2.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Madurai-625 002. 4.The Branch Officer, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, 9,Salai Road, Dindigul, Dindigul District. Vvk SR : 08.11.2011 : 3p/5c W.P.(MD)NO.7577 of 2011 18.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/