ANIK TEXTILES PVT LTD Vs. J M PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 27. 2. 88 passed by respondent No. 1 i. e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

(2.) THE petitioner had purchased land and machinery of a textile mill. The petitioner was of the opinion that it is entitled to infancy benefit of exemption from payment of provident fund dues of the employees since it engaged less than 50 workers. From 1976 onwards, the petitioner, therefore, did not deposit such benefits with the respondents. The respondents issued show cause notices and demanded contributions from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the stand of the respondents by filing Special Civil Application No. 1196 of 1982 which came to be dismissed on 30th March 1982. Review application also came to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner thereafter deposited all the dues. Since, however, there was considerable delay, the respondents initiated proceedings for recovery of damages under section 14b of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act for short ). After hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order at Annexure A demanding 100% of the principal amount by way of damages.

(3.) MAIN defence of the petitioner is that the petitioner was under a bonafide belief that being a new unit it was entitled to infancy benefits for a period of 5 years. The petitioner, therefore, did not make any contribution at the relevant time. The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that even if the petitioner had any doubt, under protest, the petitioner should have deposited the contributions.