कौन ज़िम्मेदार? KaunZimmedar

Supreme Court refers EPF penalty case to larger bench

The case concerns whether penalties for delayed provident fund deposits under the EPF & MP Act are mandatory, involving the Central Board of Trustees and various appellants challenging orders requiring full payment of PF and gratuity dues by resolution applicants.

Appellants: M/s Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation and other civil appeals (Nos. 1467-1496, 2462, 6677, 14954-14955, 634-636 of 2024). Respondents: Central Board of Trustees and others. Bench: Not specified in the text.

  • The Court referred the matter to a larger bench for consideration of whether penalties under Section 14B are mandatory.
  • The Court noted that Section 14B after amendment confers discretion on the authority to decide on whether circumstances justify absolution from penalty.
  • The Court observed that interest under Section 7Q is statutory and separate from penalty under Section 14B.

Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.

The original document

Order 2026-09-15
Tap “Open the PDF” above to view this document.
Document details
Official titleEPF Act | Whether Penalty For Delayed Provident Fund Deposit Is Mandatory? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
Source bodySupreme Court of India — orders & judgments
Reference number
Statusclosed (order)
Year2026
Closing date
Documents1

Discussion (0)

Citizens discussing these documents. A discussion space — nothing here is verified fact or an official finding. Reading is free; sign in to take part.

Open discussion (0) →