CASE TITTLE: Regional PF Commissioner, EPF organization vs President officer EPF Appellate tribunal and ors.
CASE NO:W.A(MD).No.298 of 2024
ORDER ON:15.04.2024
QUORUM: J. D.KRISHNA KUMAR And J. R.VIJAYAKUMAR
FACTS OF THE CASE :
The facts leading to the present appeal in question is that the second respondent in the writ appeal had suffered an order under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on 26.12.2003. Aggrieved over the same, the Management had filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in A.T.A.No.37/(13) of 2004. The Appellate Tribunal under the impugned order dated 03.03.2009 had restricted the damages up to 15% per annum. This order has Been confirmed by the writ Court. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Sec 14B- pertains to the power to recover damages from the employer on default payment of contribution of provident fund. The section provides that authorized officials may recover damages by way of penalty from the employer.
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Sec 7-I – Appeals to the tribunal, Sec 7-L- orders of the tribunal
CONTENSIONS OF THE APPELENT:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that,The Appellate Tribunal has no power to Revise the damages imposed by the Original Authority under Section 14-B Read with Sections 32A and 32B of Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme 1952.Further, gross reduction in the levy of damages will Have an adverse impact on the entire scheme itself.As per Paragraph No.32A of EPF Scheme, damages have to be levied at the rates furnished therein, And there is no discretion to the official to do so as per the said provision.the financial difficulties of the Management cannot be a reason for reducing the quantum of damages. When The management had deliberately and intentionally delayed the payment of Contribution, there is no ground or discretion whatsoever to the authorities to Reduce the quantum of damages as prescribed under the statute.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The court after hearing the submissions made by the appellant counsel perceived the material records and observed that A perusal of Section 7-I and 14-B makes it clear that all orders Including the order passed by the Central Board under Section 14-B are also Appealable to the Appellate Tribunal. When the order of the Central Board is Appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, the contentions of the learned counsel Appearing for the appellant that the Appellate Tribunal would not have any power to reduce or waive damages Is not legally acceptable. A close reading of Section 7-L would reveal that the Tribunal has Got power either to confirm, modify or to annul the orders of the original Authority or it can remit it back to the original authority for fresh Adjudication. Therefore, the power of the Appellate Tribunal to modify the Orders of the original authority cannot be in dispute. The original authority Cannot contend that his orders cannot be modified or set aside by the Appellate Authority. It is very strange that the original authority had Questioned the power of his Appellate Authority by way of filing this writ Petition. A comparative reading of 7-Q which relates to the imposition of Interests for the belated payment of their contribution amount and damages Under Section 14-B of the Act clearly reveals that the imposition of interest is Automatic and it is not necessary to provide any opportunity of being heard to The employer. But before imposing damages, a hearing is mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that some kind of discretion is vested with the Authorities to consider the mitigating circumstances before imposing the Damages. If there is no discretion whatsoever, the legislature would not have Mandated granting of opportunity to the employer before imposing damages, Thereafter court also referred to the below precedents, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur Vs. Manohar Bhai Ambalal Gondia, Spinning Mills Ltd., Tirupur District Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore and others)In view of the above said deliberations, the court Opines, that the Appellate Tribunal, is Empowered to reduce or waive damages as per the scheme. In the present case, in the exercise of the said powers, the Appellate Tribunal has reduced the Damages to 15%. Therefore, the court doesn’t find any illegality or infirmity in the Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal or by the writ Court in confirming the Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, concluded that there are no merits in the writ appeal. Hence, The Writ Appeal is dismissed
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by:Sowmya R
