Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India
AIR 1979 SC 1803 · Supreme Court of India
Section 14B damages for delayed EPF contributions are a legitimate deterrent and are not an unconstitutional penalty.
Unit III · Labour Law – II
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Study aid only. Confirm statute numbers with the current bare Act and the official OU LL.B. (3-YDC) 2024–25 syllabus PDF.
Statute sections
| Act / instrument | Section | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 | 1(3) | Application to establishments |
| Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 | 6 | Contributions |
| Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 | 7A | Determination of moneys due from employers |
| Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 | 14B | Power to recover damages |
Landmark cases
Daily Partap v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
(1998) 8 SCC 90 · Supreme Court of India
PF authorities may lift the corporate veil to reach the real employer who is avoiding contributions.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi
(2000) 1 SCC 98 · Supreme Court of India
A member of the EPF scheme is a consumer vis-à-vis the provident fund organisation for deficient service.