Bombay High Court
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EMPLOYEES PROVINDENT FUND ORGANIZATIONversusGUJARATI KEAVANI HITWARDHAK MANDAL
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court upheld the PFAT’s order and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The Central Board of Trustees, EPF filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 19 September 2016 of the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (PFAT) which partially set aside an earlier order under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the period August 1982 to 29 March 2012 and upheld the order for the period after 21 February 2012, also directing payment of interest from 1 July 1997 to October 2013. The petition argued that the Tribunal erred in refusing to impose damages on the respondent establishment for the earlier period. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal’s reasoning and application of Section 14B were legally sound and whether any interference was warranted. The Court found that the Tribunal had adequately recorded reasons and that there was no basis to disturb its order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal’s order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal erred in refusing to levy damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act for the period August 1982 to 29 March 2012.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal’s partial setting aside of the earlier order and its direction to pay interest.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Employees Provident Funds
- Section 14B
- Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
- Writ Petition
- Interest
- Damages
- Labour Law
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 25-WP-6209-2018.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6209 OF 2018
Central Board of Trustees, EPF ...Petitioner
: Versus :
Gujarati Keavani Hitwardhak Mandal ...Respondent
Ms. Manisha Bhatia with Ms. Sufiya Khan, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aumkar Joshi, for the Respondent.
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 24 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The petition challenges order dated 19 September 2016
passed by the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA
No. 41(9)2015. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has partly allowed
the appeal filed by the Respondent-Establishment. The order dated 8
December 2 014 passed under Section 14B of the Employees Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is partly set aside qua
period from August 1982 to 29 March 2012. The Tribunal has
maintained the order in respect of the period after 21 February 2012.
PAGE NO. 1 of 2
Thursday, 24 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 25-WP-6209-2018.docx
The Tribunal has also directed payment of interest as assessed for the
period from 1 July 1997 to October 2013. I find nothing wrong in the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded
reasons as to why the Respondent-Establishment cannot be subjected to
damages under Section 14B of the Act for the period August 1982 to 29
March 2012. There is no warrant for interference in the impugned
order. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA
SHAILESH
[SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.28
15:12:52
+0530
PAGE NO. 2 of 2
Thursday, 24 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.