Karnataka High Court Restores EPFO Damages in PF Delay Case; Tribunal’s Rs. 25,000 Penalty Cut Set Aside:

The HC held that the tribunal’s drastic reduction of damages for delayed provident fund contributions by the company was unjustified under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
HC Sets Aside Tribunal’s PF Penalty Reduction

Karnataka High Court Restores EPFO Damages in PF Delay Case; Tribunal’s Rs. 25,000 Penalty Cut Set Aside
The EPFO challenged a tribunal order that reduced damages imposed on Enchanting Travels from Rs. 3.28 lakh to Rs. 25,000 for delayed provident fund contributions of two international workers. The Karnataka High Court held the reduction unjustified as per the provisions of Section 14B of the EPF Act and Paragraph 32A of the EPF Scheme, 1952, and recalculated damages at Rs. 77,633. Now, the respondent company has been directed to pay the remaining amount.
The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) recently filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court against a company named Enchanting Travels Private Limited, challenging an order dated September 07, 2020, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT).
The respondent is a private limited company engaged in providing travel assistance and is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Previously, the respondent company had lately made payments of contributions in respect of two international workers, Nina Loges and Gonser Rebecca Anne, who worked with the company between March 20, 2014, and March 31, 2016. Considering the negligence, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, K.R. Puram, Bangalore, had imposed damages amounting to Rs 3.28 lakh and also arrears of Rs 2.04 lakh along with interest of Rs 1.06 lakh on the respondent vide order dated December 05, 2016, under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Being aggrieved with the decision, the respondent company challenged the aforesaid demand before the CGI tribunal. After analysing the case and examining the facts of the case, the tribunal significantly reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 328,083 to Rs. 25,000 via an order dated September 07, 2020. The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, challenged the same before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that such a drastic reduction was not justified under the law.
When the court examined the provisions of Section 14B of the EPF Act and Paragraph 32A of the EPF Scheme, 1952, it observed that when PF contributions are delayed for more than six months, the penalty can increase up to 25% per year of the arrears. However, in the present case, the payment was delayed for more than two years. Therefore, the tribunal was wrong in reducing the penalty amount below the prescribed limit.
The court recalculated the penalty based on the total arrears and interest amounting to Rs. 310,534. It ruled that 25% of this amount, i.e., Rs 77,633, should be imposed as damages. Since the company had already paid Rs 25,000, the court directed it to pay the remaining Rs 52,633 within two weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2420My Recent Articles
- Bona Fide Mistake in ITR Cannot Deny Section 10(10B) Exemption on BSNL VRS Compensation, Holds ITATPremium
- ITAT Grants Taxpayer a Final Opportunity to Explain Rs 2.27 Crore Cash Deposits Under Section 69APremium
- ITAT Restores Appeals for Fresh Consideration After NFAC Denied Request of Personal Hearing Through Video ConferencingPremium
- ITAT Condones 97-Day Delay, Restores Appeal After CIT(A) Sent Hearing Notices to Wrong Email AddressPremium
- MCA Appoints Justice (Retd.) Yogesh Khanna as Officiating Chairperson of NCLAT for Three Months
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








