LAVEN TECHNOBLEND LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been preferred by the Employer questioning the Order, dtd. 15/7/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.9268 of 2015 reversing the Order, dtd. 23/1/2013 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA No.163(13) 2011, which set at nought the order of the original authority levying damages under Sec. 14- B of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("EPF" Act in short) on account of delayed remittance of PF and allied dues by the Employer/Appellant herein for the period from June 1997 to May, 2010.

(2.) The facts that led to the filing of the Writ Appeal are as hereunder:

(3.) Mr. S. Ravi, learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the delay in payment of contribution was not deliberate. That being so, levy of damages by the 1st Respondent is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside as was rightly done by the Tribunal. Further, he would submit that on a reference filed in Case No.229/2002 by the Appellant, BIFR had declared the Appellant to be a sick Company by Order, dtd. 22/2/2006 in terms of Sec. 3(1)(o) of SICA and appointed IDBI as the Operating Agency with directions to prepare a revival scheme for the Appellant Company, if feasible. Therefore, in terms of proviso to Sec. 14-B of EPF Act, the Appellant is entitled to reduction or waiver of damages. The learned Counsel would further add that there was no element of mens rea on the part of the Appellant/Employer to contravene the statutory provisions. In the absence of mens rea/motive on the part of the Employer to commit default in the payment of contribution, the 1st Respondent ought not to have levied damages. According to the learned Counsel, levy of interest under Sec. 7- Q of the EPF Act and levy of damages under Sec. 14-B of the said Act amounts to double jeopardy. Therefore, the learned Counsel would pray that the Writ Appeal may be allowed.