ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, (SOUTH) Vs. SHALOM RESTAURANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails order dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA No.50(4)2010 whereby the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization directing the respondent to deposit the damages (account wise) for the period 02/2005 to 10/2006 was held as an unreasonable order passed in a mechanical manner and was, therefore, quashed.

(2.) The concise facts of the case are that the respondent was a unit of M/s. Mahima Caps (P) Ltd. In the year 2005 M/s. Mahima Caps (P) Ltd. started its amalgamation process with M/s. Mahima Hospitality (P) Ltd., which was finally concluded on 01.09.2006. The respondent is covered under the purview of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, "EPF Act") and was allotted code No.DL/30308 for remitting its provident fund contributions. The respondent was required to remit the amount of provident contribution and allied dues from 02/2005 to 10/2006 within a stipulated time frame, i.e., within a period of 15 days from closure of every month. However, the respondent failed to deposit the said dues. Hence, a notice under Section 14-B of the EPF Act was issued to it on 07.02.2008. The respondent was also asked to appear for a personal hearing on 28.02.2008 before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. It was only on 17.07.2008 that the respondent appeared through a counsel before the concerned authority and subsequently filed its reply dated 04.09.2008 to the show-cause notice dated 07.02.2008.

(3.) Vide order No. E/DL/30308/damages/C-II dated 26.11.2009, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner directed the respondent to deposit the damages within 15 days failing which, the proceedings under Section 8-B to 8-G of the EPF Act were to be invoked against it. The respondent preferred an appeal against the said order which was allowed by learned Presiding Officer, Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi vide order dated 26.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.