DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Project Officer, M/s. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Kochi has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8. The document marked as Ext.P8 contains two orders issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kochi demanding interest under Sec. 7-Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'EPF Act') and also determining damages under Sec. 14-B of the said Act.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Petitioner would submit that M/s. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is a 100% non-profit organization and is a centrally sponsored project that was implemented in the State of Kerala from 2002 onwards. The project was aimed at improving the standard of primary education and facilitating the creation of sufficient infrastructure in primary educational institutions. In order to meet the requirement of the project, several persons were employed on contract basis as well as daily wage basis. It is submitted that the fund for the project was allocated by both the Central and State Governments and the District Project Offices were disbursing amounts including the Wages paid to the Employees in accordance with the budget prepared for the scheme. There were some communications issued by the State Project Officer regarding remittance of Employees Provident Fund dues and following the same, the Project Officer, Kochi filed an application for enrollment of Employees engaged by the project under the EPF Act. By Ext.P4, dtd. 1/10/2010, it was determined that the provisions of the EPF Act are applicable to the Employees engaged in connection with the project. By Ext.P5, it was informed that the coverage would be from 16/9/2003 and not from 20/9/2004 as previously intimated. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for the levy of damages under Sec. 14-B of the EPF Act and for determining the levy of interest under Sec. 7-Q of the EPF Act. The amount to be remitted towards contribution had already been remitted by the Project Officer. By Ext.P8, it was determined that the Petitioner was liable for interest under Sec. 7-Q of the EPF Act as also to damages under Sec. 14-B of the EPF Act. Though the Petitioner chose to prefer an Appeal against Ex.P8 proceedings both in respect of the interest levied under Sec. 7-Q of the EPF Act as also in respect of levy of damages under Sec. 14-B of the EPF Act, the said Appeal was preferred beyond time and even beyond the condonable period provided under Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1997. It is therefore that the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P8.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader submits that, at present, the challenge is confined to the levy of damages under Sec. 14-B of the EPF Act. It is submitted that, as noticed in the Order, dtd. 13/8/2018 in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner had undertaken to pay the interest under Sec. 7-Q of the EPF Act. It is submitted that a reading of Ext.P8 order imposing damages under Sec. 14-B of the EPF Act does not disclose any application of mind to the relevant facts including the fact that the M/s. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was a centrally sponsored project intended to improve the quality of primary education in the State. It is submitted that there were no Permanent Employees for the project and the Employees were engaged only on Daily Wage basis or on contract basis. It is submitted that while the Petitioner did not dispute the coverage under the EPF Act, it has a case that, in the background of the peculiar facts of the case, the authority should have considered whether damages under Sec. 14-B of the Act had to be imposed on the Petitioner.