M/S. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC CO. LTD. REP. BY MR. P.Y. MAHAJAN VICE PRESIDENT (LEGAL) & COMPANY SECRETARY Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2004 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, determining Rs. 91,54,160/ - as damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF Act') preferred W.P. No. 14338/2005 whence a learned Single Judge by order dated 17th August 2007 -Annexure -B while quashing the endorsement dated 31.1.2005 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, remitted the proceeding to the Central Board of Trustees, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, for re -consideration and until such time directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner not to precipitate any matter pursuant to the order dated 19.5.2004. The Central Board of Trustees rejected the petitioner's request for waiver of damages, in the light of the legal and factual position by letter dated 1st September 2008 - Annexure -C. Petitioner carried orders of the Central Board of Trustees and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in ATA No. 861(6)/2008 before the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal by order dated 12th January 2009 on the premise that Section 7 -1 of the Act was inapplicable. That order was called in question in W.P. No. 12078/2009, whence a learned Single Judge by order dated 16th June 2010 -Annexure -F allowed the petition, quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remitted the proceeding for fresh consideration. On remand, the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 25th August 2011 - Annexure -H while extracting portions of the observations of the Apex Court and that of the High Court of Orissa in reported opinions held, that in the absence of material on record it cannot be said that the delay caused any prejudice to the appellant i.e., the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition.

(2.) ON 10.9.2012, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was recorded in the matter of deposit of Rs. 46,18,000/ - as against demand for Rs. 91,54,160/ -, following which an interim order was granted.

(3.) IN response to the said notice, the representative of the petitioner appeared on the date of hearing and stated that the petitioner would remit the interest portion shortly and seek waiver of penal damages. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by order dated 19.5.2004 - Annexure -A observed that, a statutory obligation is cast on the petitioner to pay the contribution, while the Act, a social welfare legislation intended to provide social security cover to its members, dependent upon prompt compliance by employers, observed that damages is required to be levied to recoup the interest loss as also penalty, a deterrent to the defaulting employer, determined Rs. 91,54,160/ - as damages for the period from 03/2001 to 02/2003, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 14B of the Act.