ASSISTANT PROVIDENT Vs. BOMBAY RAYON FASHIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dtd. 14/9/2020 rendered in EPF No.34/2018. Primarily, the writ petition is vitiated by delay and laches. The order impugned is dtd. 14/9/2020 and the writ petition impugning the same is filed into this Court on 25/5/2023 i.e. after a passage of nearly three years. Be that as it may, we have also examined the impugned order on merits. It is the contention of the petitioner that the damages have been calculated in terms of Para 32A of The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (for short 'EPF Scheme, 1952'), which reads as under:-

(3.) It is imperative to reproduce Sec. 14B of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') and the same reads as under:-