PROCESS SYNDICATE Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involves in this writ petition is that as to whether the impugned order is a speaking order for the purpose of assessing damages under Section 14-B of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

(2.) Mr.D.N. Vohra has contended that the impugned order, inter alia, states that the end of justice would be met if damages are levied in terms of the enclosed statement. That order cannot be termed as a speaking order for assessing damages as no basis for agreeing to the rates as levied and mentioned in the statement has been given by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, To support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Organo Chemical Industries and anr. Vs.Union of India and ors. 1979 Lab.I.C.1261. Mr.Vohra has further contended that as per the Scheme mentioned in Section 32-A of the Act rate of damages and percentage thereof has been provided although from the statement which has been taken into consideration by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, no basis has been adverted to and, therefore, the order becomes non-speaking, arbitrary and without basis.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.R.C.Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has contended that the impugned order is a speaking order as would be evident from the order if read as a whole. He has further contended that levy of damages could be 100% of the amount of default in terms of Section 14-B of the Act. He has contended that this question is no more res integra in view of the authority of the Supreme Court as well of this Court and he has cited M/s Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs.Union of India & ors. ILR (1984) II Delhi 60.