TAMILNADU AGRO ENGG Vs. DIRECTOR (RECOVERY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals have been filed to set aside the order dated 07.06.2011 passed in W.P. Nos.30690 of 2007 and 6423 of 2008 in and by which the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, rejected the request of the petitioner for waiver of damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short 'the EPF Act').

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the appellant Tamil Nadu Agro Engineering and Service Co-operative Federation Limited be referred as 'the Federation'.

(3.) Mr.S.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant Federation was started in the year 1972 under Half Million Job Programme to provide employment opportunities to the un-employed Engineers and Technicians under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983 and Rules 1988. Since the appellant Federation has incurred heavy loss, after some time, the Government of Tamil Nadu was forced to take winding up proceedings of the Federation. In this regard, the Government of Tamil Nadu, exercising its power under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1963, initiated winding up proceedings of the Federation, by passing an order in G.O. Ms. No.395 Agriculture (AE.II) Department dated 27.11.2002. Consequently, a Liquidator was appointed by an order dated 31.05.2005 to take over the charge of the assets and liabilities of the appellant Federation. Pursuant to the winding up proceedings, the Special Officer of the Federation has issued retrenchment notices to 370 employees of the Federation by terminating their services. While so, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation has taken steps for recovery of damages and for non-payment of provident fund dues under Section 14-B of the 'EPF Act1. Opposing the above, the appellant Federation has submitted its explanation dated 09.05.2007 to the Director (Recovery), Employees' Provident Fund Organisation informing that it has become sick unit and it has been closed as per the order of the State Government, hence, requested him to waive the interest and damages. On receipt of the same, the Director (Recovery), Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, without even hearing the appellant Federation, passed an order quantifying the damages for a period from April 2002 to November 2004 and has fixed Rs. 1,88,49,251/- as contribution and also directed the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation to ensure the remittance of the above said amount from the Federation. Aggrieved thereby, a detailed representation was made by the Federation under Section 14-B of 'the EPF Act' and Section 32-B(c) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952 to waive the damages levelled against the Federation.