CWP-17222-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 CWP-17222-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 CENTRAL BOAD OF TRUSTEE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION ... Petitioner VS M/S RAMGARHIA POLYTECHNICAL COLLEGE AND ANOTHER ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Central Board of Trustees, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal, while adjudicating the appeal preferred by respondent No.1-Establishment under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, 'the Act'), reduced the damages levied upon respondent No.1 under Section 14-B of the Act to 25%, while affirming the interest levied under Section 7-Q of the Act. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17222-2026 (O&M) -2- 2) The facts, briefly stated, are that on account of delay in remittance of Provident Fund contributions for the period from 02/2014 to 11/2015, proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act were initiated against respondent No.1, which is admittedly covered under the provisions of the Act, culminating in the passing of the order dated 10.11.2016 (Annexure P- 1) by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, whereby damages amounting to Rs.88,804/- were levied under Section 14-B of the Act, and interest was separately levied under Section 7-Q of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act before the Tribunal, vide which the impugned order dated 15.01.2025, (Annexure P-2), was partly allowed and damages levied under Section 14-B of the Act were reduced to 25%, while leaving the interest levied under Section 7-Q of the Act undisturbed. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in reducing the damages without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reason, and that respondent No.1-Establishment had, at the stage of proceedings before the Assessing Authority, failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delay in remittance of the statutory dues. It is submitted that reduction of damages in such circumstances, without any material justification on record, in effect rewards a defaulting employer. Accordingly, the impugned order, which is arbitrary, and runs contrary to the settled scheme of the Act, is liable to be set aside. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his assistance. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17222-2026 (O&M) -3- 5) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not disturbed the finding that respondent No.1 committed a default, nor has it interfered with the liability to pay interest under Section 7-Q of the Act, which remains fully intact. The Tribunal has only reduced the amount of damages under Section 14-B, after taking into account that respondent No.1 is a Government grant-in-aid institution, and that the delay in payment was, at least partly, on account of delay in release of grants by the State Government. This was a relevant factor that the Tribunal took into account while deciding the quantum of damages, in exercise of its discretion under Section 14-B. Since this view is based on material on record, and supported by reasoning, it cannot be termed arbitrary or baseless merely on the possibility of another view. 6) It is well settled that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against an Award passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings recorded by the Tribunal are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a patent error of law apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings returned by the learned Tribunal are founded upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record and are neither arbitrary nor perverse. No jurisdictional error or legal infirmity has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17222-2026 (O&M) -4- this Court in exercise of its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned Award does not call for any interference. 7) For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 8) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 27.07.2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.29 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document