SHANTHI GARMENTS PVT LTD Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the manufacture of hosiery items. The petitioner furnished an investigation pro-forma dated 17.3.1989 to the Enforcement Officer of the respondent seeking coverage under the Act. The petitioner deposited the amount of contribution in a separate account in State Bank of India and intimated the Enforcement Officer accordingly. However, the Employer’s Code Number was not furnished. Subsequently the petitioner filed W.P.No.10178 of 1991 seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to furnish the code number. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a separate code number was furnished to the petitioner vide order dated 31.3.1993 and the petitioner was informed that the Act would be applicable to the petitioner with effect from 31.1.1989. After allotment of code number, the petitioner has been depositing the amount with the respondent in the furnished code. However, the respondent issued show cause notice dated 9.10.1995 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why damages should not be recovered under Section 14-B of the Act for the period from 1988-89 to 1994-95. The petitioner filed show cause mainly contending that the amount was being deposited in a separate account in State Bank of India as code number has not been furnished and there is no wilful default. The respondent, however, under the impugned order has directed the petitioner to pay damages totalling Rs.1,01,058/-. The aforesaid order is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioner and since code number had not been furnished in spite of repeated requests made, there should not have been any direction regarding payment of damages, particularly when the amount was being deposited by the petitioner in a separate account in State Bank of India.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that liability to pay contribution is the statutory liability and non-furnishing of code number is not an excuse and since the liability to pay contribution is absolute, any default in making the payment within the stipulated time would automatically attract the provisions of Section 14-B of the Act.