MANAGEMENT TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI) LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDING OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a transport corporation fully owned by the Tamil Nadu Government and it operates passengers service in and around Dindigul District. There are also other transport corporations operating passengers service in other districts and those corporations are also owned by the Tamil Nadu Government. The Government directed the transport corporations during 1995 not to remit the contributions to the first Respondent and to keep the contribution in a separate accounts as the State is going to frame a separate beneficial scheme to employees of the corporations. In these circumstances, the transport corporations including the Petitioner did not remit the provident fund contribution during the period between December 1995 and October 1996. It is also not in dispute that later an exemption was obtained for a separate scheme and a separate scheme was operating from 01.09.1998 and no contribution is remitted to the first Respondent.

(2.) The first Respondent directed the Petitioner to remit the amount and they were bound to remit the contribution until they got the exemption. In these circumstances, they remitted the amount belatedly. In view of the belated payment, the first Respondent initiated proceedings under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. That resulted in passing of the order, dated 16.12.1998 by the first Respondent levying damages at Rs. 21,71,842/-. The afore-said damages constitutes 37% of the contribution that was belatedly paid.

(3.) The other transport corporations also suffered with similar orders imposing the damages at the rate of 37% of the contribution that were paid belatedly. The other corporations filed appeal before the second Respondent. The second Respondent in all those appeals directed those transport corporations to approach the Central Board of Trustees by order, dated 28.07.1998. Accordingly, those corporations approached the Board of Trustees, but the Board of Trustees declined to entertain their grievances stating that the Board of Trustees has no jurisdiction to decide the same. The Board of Trustees has stated that only in the case of sick companies they could interfere in the matter of damages, otherwise they could not. Hence, the Corporations filed review petitions before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed their review petitions by an order dated 01.02.2000 and reduced the liability from the rate of 37% to 17% of contribution as damages.