Authority: Calcutta High Court

Order Date: 09.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (represented by Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv.)
  • Respondent No. 1: St. Michael's School, an English‑medium school covered under the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Establishment ID WBDGP0025946000), represented by Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee and Mr. Balaram Patra, Adv.
  • Writ Application: WPA 24604 of 2024 filed challenging an order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court, Asansol in EPF No. 06 of 2015 (Old ATA 1126(15) of 2015).
  • Tribunal Findings (impugned order):
  • The tribunal held that the respondent had been assessed damages and interest beyond the statutory notice period without an opportunity to be heard.
  • Interest for the period 02/1999 to 25.09.2008 was not calculated according to the “Sliding Table” under paragraph 32A(1) of the EPF Act effective w.e.f. 26.09.2008.
  • Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order dated 15.09.2015 and remanded the matter back to the Provident Fund Authority, directing a fresh hearing within three months and obligating the appellant to participate on all dates fixed.
  • Legal References Cited by Petitioner: Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India (1998), Dalgaon Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2005), Calicut Modern Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1982), Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India (1979), N.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1958), Solanki Workshop v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Amin Chand v. State of Punjab.
  • Respondent’s Argument: The damages were assessed at a rate higher than the prevailing rate at the initiation of proceedings.
  • Statutory Provision Highlighted: Notification G.S.R. 69‑(E) dated 26.09.2008 amending paragraph 32A of the EPF Act, prescribing a sliding‑table of damages based on the period of default (2 months – ₹5, 2‑4 months – ₹10, 4‑6 months – ₹15, >6 months – ₹25) and rounding rules.
  • Additional Judicial References: Respondent relied on Zon Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (2025) regarding right of hearing. The Court noted the petitioner’s reliance on the overruled Central Board of Trustees, EPFO v. Roma Henny Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6592 of 2014).
  • Court’s Observations: The tribunal correctly identified procedural irregularities—travel beyond notice period, denial of hearing, and misapplication of the sliding table—thus upholding natural‑justice principles.

Final Outcome

  • The writ (WPA 24604 of 2024) is dismissed.
  • No interference with the tribunal’s order; the remand for fresh hearing within three months remains in force.
  • All applications connected to the writ are disposed of.
  • A photostat certified copy of the judgment will be provided to parties upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: EPF Litigation, Natural Justice, Tribunal Order