{"id":197248,"date":"2002-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002"},"modified":"2016-10-26T00:17:04","modified_gmt":"2016-10-25T18:47:04","slug":"ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nW.P.NO. 184 OF 1996\nand\nW.M.P.No. 275 OF 1996\n\n\nM\/s. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd.,\nThanjavur 613 005.                              ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nRegional Provident Fund\nCommissioner Employees\nProvident Fund Organisation,\nSub Regional Office,\nP.B.No.588, Complex \u2018D\u2019 Block,\n18, Madurai Road,\nTiruchirappalli 620 008.                        ..  Respondent\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  M\/s.  Gupta &amp; Ravi\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.V.  Vibhishanan\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>                Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the<br \/>\nCompanies Act,  1956  and  engaged  in  the manufacture of hosiery items.  The<br \/>\npetitioner  furnished  an  investigation  pro-forma  dated  17.3.1989  to  the<br \/>\nEnforcement Officer  of  the  respondent  seeking coverage under the Act.  The<br \/>\npetitioner deposited the amount of contribution in a separate account in State<br \/>\nBank of India and intimated the Enforcement Officer accordingly.  However, the<br \/>\nEmployer\u2019s Code Number was not furnished.  Subsequently the  petitioner  filed<br \/>\nW.P.No.10178  of  1991 seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent<br \/>\nto furnish the code number.  During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a<br \/>\nseparate code  number  was  furnished  to  the  petitioner  vide  order  dated<br \/>\n31.3.1993  and the petitioner was informed that the Act would be applicable to<br \/>\nthe petitioner with effect from 31.1.1989.  After allotment  of  code  number,<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  has  been  depositing  the  amount with the respondent in the<br \/>\nfurnished code.  However,  the  respondent  issued  show  cause  notice  dated<br \/>\n9.10.1995  calling  upon the petitioner to show cause as to why damages should<br \/>\nnot be recovered under Section 14-B of the Act for the period from 1988-89  to<br \/>\n1994-95.   The  petitioner  filed show cause mainly contending that the amount<br \/>\nwas being deposited in a separate account in  State  Bank  of  India  as  code<br \/>\nnumber has not been furnished and there is no wilful default.  The respondent,<br \/>\nhowever,  under  the impugned order has directed the petitioner to pay damages<br \/>\ntotalling Rs.1 ,01,058\/-.  The aforesaid order  is  challenged  in  this  writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted<br \/>\nthat since there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioner and since<br \/>\ncode  number  had not been furnished in spite of repeated requests made, there<br \/>\nshould not have been any direction regarding payment of damages,  particularly<br \/>\nwhen the amount was being deposited by the petitioner in a separate account in<br \/>\nState Bank of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted<br \/>\nthat   liability   to   pay   contribution  is  the  statutory  liability  and<br \/>\nnonfurnishing of code number is not an excuse and since the liability  to  pay<br \/>\ncontribution  is  absolute,  any  default  in  making  the  payment within the<br \/>\nstipulated time would automatically attract the provisions of Section 14-B  of<br \/>\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   In the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1979(II)<br \/>\nLLJ 41 6 <a href=\"\/doc\/1672252\/\">(ORGANO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND  ANOTHER  v.    UNION  OF  INDIA  AND<br \/>\nOTHERS)<\/a>  while  upholding  the  validity  of  Section  14-B  of the Employees\u2019<br \/>\nProvident Funds Act, 1952 it was observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c .  .  .  The expression \u201cdamages\u201d occurring in Section  14B  is,  in<br \/>\nsubstance,  a  penalty imposed on the employer for the breach of the statutory<br \/>\nobligation.  The object of imposition of penalty  under  Section  14B  is  not<br \/>\nmerely \u201cto  provide  compensation  for  the employees\u201d.  We are clearly of the<br \/>\nopinion that the imposition of damages  under  Section  14B  serves  both  the<br \/>\npurposes.   It  is  meant  to  penalise defaulting employer as also to provide<br \/>\nreparation for the amount of loss suffered by the employees.  It is not only a<br \/>\nwarning to employers in general not  to  commit  a  breach  of  the  statutory<br \/>\nrequirements  of  Section  6,  but  at  the  same  time it is meant to provide<br \/>\ncompensation  or  redress  to  the  beneficiaries,  i.e.,  to  recompense  the<br \/>\nemployees for  the loss sustained by them.  There is nothing in the section to<br \/>\nshow that the damages must bear relationship to the loss which  is  caused  to<br \/>\nthe beneficiaries  under  the  Scheme.    The word \u201cdamages\u201d in Section 14B is<br \/>\nrelated to the word \u201cdefault\u201d.  The words used in Section 14B are \u201c default in<br \/>\nthe payment of contribution\u201d  and,  therefore,  the  word  \u201cdefault\u201d  must  be<br \/>\nconstrued  in  the  light  of  Para  38  of the Scheme which provides that the<br \/>\npayment of contribution has got to be made by the 15th of the following  month<br \/>\nand,  therefore,  the  word  \u201cdefault\u201d  in  Section 14 B must mean \u201cfailure in<br \/>\nperformance\u201d or \u201cfailure to act.\u201d At the same time, the imposition of  damages<br \/>\nunder  Section 14B is to provide reparation for the amount of loss suffered by<br \/>\nthe employees.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>It was further observed :\n<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c .  .  .  Nor can  it  be  accepted  that  there  are  no  guidelines<br \/>\nprovided for  fixing  the  quantum  of  damages.    The  power of the Regional<br \/>\nProvident  Fund  Commissioner  to  impose  damages  under  Section  14B  is  a<br \/>\nquasi-judicial function.    It must be exercised after notice to the defaulter<br \/>\nand after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.  The  discretion<br \/>\nto  award  damages  could be exercised within the limits fixed by the Statute.<br \/>\nHaving regard to the punitive nature of the power  exercisable  under  Section<br \/>\n14B  and  the  consequences  that ensure therefrom, an order under Section 14B<br \/>\nmust be a \u201cspeaking order\u201d containing the reasons  in  support  of  it.    The<br \/>\nguidelines are provided in the Act and its various provisions, particularly in<br \/>\nthe  word  \u201cdamages\u201d  the  liability  for  which  in Section 14B arises on the<br \/>\n\u201cmaking of default\u201d.   While  fixing  the  amount  of  damages,  the  Regional<br \/>\nProvident  Fund  Commissioner usually takes into consideration, as he has done<br \/>\nhere, various factors, viz., the number of defaults, the period of delay,  the<br \/>\nfrequency of defaults and the amounts involved.  The word \u201cdamages\u201d in Section<br \/>\n14B lays down sufficient guidelines for him to levy damages.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>                5.  In 1998(2)  S.C.C.  242 <a href=\"\/doc\/1899862\/\">(HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED v.  UNION<br \/>\nOF INDIAS AND OTHERS) the<\/a> aforesaid view was reiterated.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  In  1997(1)  S.C.C.     241   <a href=\"\/doc\/728483\/\">(REGIONAL   PROVIDENT   FUND<br \/>\nCOMMISSIONER v.  S.D.  COLLEGE, HOSHIARPUR AND OTHERS)<\/a> it was observed :\n<\/p>\n<p>        \u201c .  .  .  In other words, the Act envisages the imposition of damages<br \/>\nfor delayed  payments.   The Act is a beneficial welfare legislation to ensure<br \/>\nhealth and other benefits to the employees.  The employer  under  the  Act  is<br \/>\nunder  a  statutory  obligation  to  deduct  the  specified  percentage of the<br \/>\ncontribution from the employee\u2019s salary and matching contribution, the  entire<br \/>\namount  is  required to be deposited in the fund within 15 days after the date<br \/>\nof the collection, every month.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Thereby the employer is under a statutory obligation  to  deposit  the<br \/>\namount to  the  credit  of  the fund every month.  In the event of any default<br \/>\ncommitted in that behalf, Section 14-B steps in and calls upon the employer to<br \/>\npay damages by way of  penalty,  the  maximum  of  which  is  the  accumulated<br \/>\narrears.  The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is given discretion only to<br \/>\nreduce  a  percentage  of  damages  and  he  has  no  power  to  waive penalty<br \/>\naltogether.  .  .  .\u201d (Emphasis added).\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Keeping in view the ratio of these decisions, the validity<br \/>\nof the impugned order is to be  examined.    The  contention  of  the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel  for  the  petitioner  to  the  effect  that since there was no wilful<br \/>\ndefault on the part of the petitioner there should not have been  a  direction<br \/>\nregarding  payment  of damages, cannot be accepted in view of the observations<br \/>\nmade by the Supreme Court in the last cited decision.  The aforesaid  decision<br \/>\nmakes  it  clear  that  the  authority  has no discretion to waive the damages<br \/>\naltogether though it may reduce the amount possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  Judged in the light of the above  decisions,  it  is  seen<br \/>\nthat the respondent has not examined the matter in its proper perspective.  It<br \/>\nis  not  disputed  that  the  petitioner  was all along willing to deposit the<br \/>\ncontribution and was asking for supply of code number and since no code number<br \/>\nwas furnished he was depositing the amount in a separate account in State Bank<br \/>\nof India.  As observed by the Supreme Court,  the  appropriate  authority  has<br \/>\ndiscretion to  quantify  the  amount of damages payable.  Where the default is<br \/>\nwanton, the quantum of damages would obviously be higher, but where  there  is<br \/>\nno  wilful  default,  the appropriate authority is to consider the question of<br \/>\nquantum in a different spirit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  As observed by the Supreme Court, the direction  regarding<br \/>\npayment of damages is compensatory as well as penal in nature.  Where there is<br \/>\nno wilful violation, quantum of damages should be more or less compensatory in<br \/>\nnature  and where the default is continuous or intentional, damages payable in<br \/>\naddition to being compensatory would be penal as well.  The  delay  in  making<br \/>\npayments  obviously  should  not prejudice the employees for whose benefit the<br \/>\nFund is created.  Where \u201c default\u201d is found,  but  no  apparent  \u201cfault\u201d,  the<br \/>\nquantum of damages should be compensatory rather than penal in nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   Having  regard  to  all these facts, I think interest of<br \/>\njustice would be served by  modifying  the  quantum  of  damages  payable  and<br \/>\ndirecting  that  the  extent  of  damages  should be confined to the statutory<br \/>\ninterest payable so that the employees would not be at loss.   The  respondent<br \/>\nis  therefore directed to requantify the damages payable by confining the same<br \/>\nto the amount of interest payable.  The  petitioner  should  pay  the  revised<br \/>\namount  within  a  period  of one month from the date of communication of such<br \/>\nfresh order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  The writ petition is accordingly allowed  to  the  extent<br \/>\nindicated above.   There  would be no order as to costs.  Consequently, W.M.P.<br \/>\nNo.275 of 1996 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>25-10-2002<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\ndpk<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nRegional Provident Fund<br \/>\nCommissioner Employees<br \/>\nProvident Fund Organisation,<br \/>\nSub Regional Office,<\/p>\n<p>P.B.No.588, Complex D Block,<br \/>\n18, Madurai Road,<br \/>\nTiruchirappalli 620 008.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA W.P.NO. 184 OF 1996 and W.M.P.No. 275 OF 1996 M\/s. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd., Thanjavur 613 005. .. Petitioner -Vs- Regional Provident [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-25T18:47:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T18:47:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1524,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T18:47:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-25T18:47:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T18:47:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002"},"wordCount":1524,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002","name":"M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T18:47:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shanthi-garments-pvt-ltd-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-25-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund on 25 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}