The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry vs Sri Janardhana Mills Limited

P. Sathasivam, J.—The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 112.07.1994 made in W.P.No. 11274 of 1984, in and by which, the learned single Judge, accepting the grievance of the writ petitioner, allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated therein. Questioning the said order, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry has filed the present appeal.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.

The matter relates to damages u/s 14B of the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of Sri Janardhana Mills at Coimbatore. It is the claim of the writ petitioner/respondent herein that due to various reasons including the negotiation with the Government of Tamil Nadu the delay occurred in the remittance of contributions. They also furnished various details regarding the period of strike, lock outs and closure etc. They also furnished the orders passed by the BIFR as well as AIFR. Taking note of all the grievances expressed by the writ petitioner and in view of the language used in Section 14B of the Act, the learned single Judge has arrived at a factual conclusion that the delay was unintentional, which does not attract penal action. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, due to various reasons as mentioned above, the Management was not in a position to remit the amount in time and committed default. In the decision reported in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal and Anr. v. Delta Jute and Industries Ltd. and Anr. the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering Section 14B of the Act, has admitted that after a scheme was prepared by them(Supreme Court), the respondent company, which was a sick industry, has revived and has paid both the current and arrear dues of provident fund contribution in instalments without any default. In such circumstances, taking note of the said fact, Their Lordships have concluded that it will not be desirable to direct for payment of interest and damages as claimed so that the process of revival is again put to jeopardy. By saying so concluded that considering the provisions of Section 14B of the Act and also the facts of the case, refused to interfere with the impugned order.

Considering the factual details furnished, which are available even in the proceedings of the appellant-The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, and the details mentioned in the affidavit filed before the learned single Judge and also considering the language used in Section 14B of the Act, in the absence of any other adequate material, we are not inclined to interfere with the factual conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge as well as the relief granted in favour of the writ petitioner. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.