AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by Employees'' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Camp at Jaipur in ATA No. 155(5) 2010 whereby the matter was remanded to the authority to assess the liability at the rate of 22% including the rate of interest annually and the appellant was directed to appear within one month of the said order. The short facts of the case are that the respondent failed to pay the contribution payable under various provisions and therefore the petitioner initiated proceedings and ultimately vide order dated 17.2.2010 directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 3,60,522 u/s 7Q and a further sum of Rs. 5,04,080 u/s 14B, totalling an amount of Rs. 8,64,602. This amount was directed to be paid within 15 days from the date of issuance of the order.
1.1 The respondent challenged the said order before the Appellate Tribunal by way of ATA No. 155(5) 2010 and by order dated 7.9.2011 the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to assess the liability at the rate of 22% including the rate of interest annually. Hence the present petition.
According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal has agreed with all the submissions made on behalf of the Department, but without assigning any reason, the quantum of damages u/s 14B and the interest u/s 7Q of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came to be reduced to 22% annually. He further submitted that the order passed by the authority is without any basis. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Hindustan Times Limited Vs. Union of India and Others, wherein it is held in headnote D as under:
Labour Law-Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, section 14B --Explanation for default-Propriety-Power-cut, financial problems relating to other indebtedness or delay in realization of amounts paid by cheques or drafts, held, are not relevant explanations to avoid liability for default.
Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused all the relevant documents on record.
The Appellate Tribunal has considered the fact that the respondent sustained loss regularly and therefore the default did not appear to be intentional one. In this Connection the Appellate Tribunal has relied upon a decision in the case of Shanti Garment v. RPFC, reported in 2003 (1) CLR 228: 2003 LLR 256 wherein the High Court of Madras held that whether the default is found, but there was no apparent fault, the quantum of damages should be compensatory in nature. Thus, in the present case in view of loss suffered by the appellant they could not deposit the amount regularly and it is not a deliberate default, ft is also required to be noted that the respondent deposited the contribution regularly till it is faced the financial difficulties. Therefore this is not a case to consider the extreme penalty as provided under the Act.
The Appellate Authority held in para 9 that the E.P.F. Act does not prescribe any period of limitation to start a proceedings. In the case of M/s. Hindustan Times Limited Vs. Union of India and Others, their Lordships held that in spite of all these amendments over a period of more than 30 years the legislature did not think fit to make any provision prescribed in the period of limitation. This is significant and it is clear that it is not legislature''s intention to prescribe any period of limitation for computing and recovery the arrears. Their lordships further held that the provisions of Indian Limitation Act 1963 are not attracted in such cases. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal. No case is made out to cause interference. Hence the petition is rejected.