- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12479-DB WP No. 38072 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 38072 OF 2019 (L-PF) BETWEEN: FATHER MULLER CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, KANKANADY, MANGALORE - 575 002. (BY ITS DIRECTOR REV. FR RICHARD ALOYSIUS COELHO) …PETITIONER (BY SRI.NATARAJA BALLAL A, ADVOCATE) AND: REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN' HIGHLANDS, MANGALORE - 575 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M.R. SHALAMALA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDERS DATED 26.04.2019 PASSED IN EPF NO.623/2017 AND 682/2017 (ANNEXURE-K) ALSO THE ORDERS BEARING NO.KN/MN/4992/ENF- Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12479-DB WP No. 38072 of 2019 II/DAMAGES/1037/2014-15 DATED 15.07.2014 AND KN/MN/4992/ENF-II/DAMAGES/1038/2014-15, DATED 15.07.2014 (ANNX-F AND G), DIRECT REFUND OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER AND COLLECTED BY THE RESPONDENT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ANNX-F AND G ORDERS OF THE RESPONDENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The employer in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court (for short 'the Tribunal') in EPF No.623/2017 and 682/2017 dated 26.04.2019. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned order declined to interfere with the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12479-DB WP No. 38072 of 2019 3. Heard, Sri.Nataraja Ballal.A, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.R.Shalamala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The brief factual matrix is as under: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner - Institution is a charitable institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. They had more than 2,000 employees. The respondent Commissioner conducted an inquiry in respect of the belated remittance made by the petitioner between 01.04.2010 to 30.09.2013 and called upon the petitioner to submit its explanation for the belated payments. The petitioner participated in the hearing through its representative. The respondent authority observed that the cheques were deposited after 15th day of the succeeding month in violation of Para 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme (for short 'the Scheme'), which mandates contribution payable for a particular month - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12479-DB WP No. 38072 of 2019 within 15 days of the close of the month. Under the Scheme, grace period of 5 days in addition to 15 days has been prescribed and if any amount has been remitted within that 5 days grace period, the same would not be treated as default in payment. The respondent Authority despite the same, proceeded to impose interest on the belated payment under Section 7Q of the Act by counting upon interest @ 12% per annum from the date on which the amount fell due till the date of actual payment. Further the authority exercising power under Section 14B of the Act, ordered for payment of 5% as prescribed under Para 32A of the Scheme, which amounts to Rs.24,209/-. Both the orders i.e., payment of Rs.58,107/- the interest on the delayed payment and the damages at the rate of 5% were called in question before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal's reasoning in its order, particularly at Paragraph No.10 is based on the material on record and concluded that the funds being deposited with the Employees' Provident Fund Organization after the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12479-DB WP No. 38072 of 2019 20th of the succeeding month, passed an order for payment of interest on belated payment of amounts as well as damages at the rate of 5% on the said amount. The Tribunal has reasoned that the order passed by the Authority is neither arbitrary nor perverse. Accordingly, dismissed both the appeals. This order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged several grounds. Considering the amount of interest, which is Rs.58,107/- a negligible figure, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the CGIT. 7. We find that the amount having been paid in the grace period provided under the Scheme, and the belated payment is not attributable to the petitioner. Hence, the order for damages at the rate 5% is not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside only the part of damages at the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12479-DB WP No. 38072 of 2019 rate of Rs.24,209/-. However, the question of law which has been raised in the case is kept open. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5