Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Employees Provident Fund

None for the appellant.

Ms. G.Sudha, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

This intra court appeal is filed against an order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8744 of 1998, by which writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a notification dated 17.05.1977 was issued under the provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by which “Beedi industry” was within the purview of the Act. The validity of the aforesaid notification was challenged by the Beedi Manufacturers’ Association in a batch of writ petitions before Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India by an order dated 25.09.1985 dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the Beedi Manufacturers’ Association.

Thereafter the Central Government constituted a tripartite committee for implementation of the provident fund scheme in respect of Beedi industries. As per the recommendations of the tripartite committee, the employees’ share of contributions for a period from June, 1977 to September, 1985 was to be exempted unless the employees and employers themselves come forward to pay the past contributions in lump sum or in instalments. The waiver of the employees’ share for the aforesaid period was subject to the condition that the employer shall pay the entire amount of contribution payable by it immediately and if the amount is being remitted in instalments, the same shall be paid in full on or before 31.03.1990. Admittedly, respondent No.2 namely the Beedi factory complied with the recommendations of the tripartite committee constituted by the Central Government by depositing the employer’s share of provident fund. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner exercised the powers under Section 14-B of the Act for levy of damages for the period for which the stay was granted by Supreme Court.

Respondent No.2 challenged the decision taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act before the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, which was disposed of by an order dated 05.01.1998. The Tribunal held that respondent No.2-Beedi factory is not liable to pay any damages and the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was set aside. The appellant thereupon challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 06.06.2007. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for consideration.

We have perused the record and heard learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Admittedly, the Central Government constituted tripartite committee for implementation of provident fund scheme in respect of Beedi industries. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid tripartite committee was required to examine the aspect of amounts towards provident fund and the aforesaid committee had not recommended for collection of damages. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of recommendation made by the aforesaid tripartite committee, respondent No.2 deposited the employer’s share of contribution. The tripartite committee did not recommend levy of interest on the employer’s share. Therefore, the appellant had no authority in law to levy interest in respect of the period for which the stay was granted by the Supreme Court.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8744 of 1998.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.