VINSON ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is an establishment which is subjected to the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The establishment, it is said, was originally known as M/s. N. Balasubramaniam, which was allegedly closed on January 4, 1981 and restarted on April 13, 1981, under anew management According to the petitioner at the alleged closure, M/s. N. Balasubramaniam paid off and settled all their employees and some of the employees who sought settlement of their provident fund accounts with the respondent. Ex. employees of M/s. N. Balasubramaniam, however, were appointed by the petitioner from April 13, 1981 under new account numbers for the provident fund contributions. The respondent, however, maintained that the transfer of the establishment to the petitioner did not make it a new establishment altogether for the purposes of recovery; of the contributions as per law and the petitioner, in view of the same, made remittances for the period April, 1981 to September, 1981 in November 1981 and February, 1982 to the old account number of the previous owners M/s. N. Balasubramaniam, By a communication, however, dated September 20, 1984, the respondent intimated the petitioner that it had delayed the payment of contributions and other dues for the periods mentioned therein and called upon the petitioner to show cause why damage should not be levied under Section 14 (B) of the Act. The petitioner, by letter dated October 15, 1984, replied

(2.) THERE has been, according to the petitioner itself, delay in the remittances of the provident fund contributions caused for the reasons stated by it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent however, has relied on the express language of Section 14 (B) of the Act and contended that the competent authority, as authorised by the appropriate Government, has committed no error of jurisdiction or law in proceeding against the petitioner to recover damages, which affected not only the contributions as such, but the claims of the provident fund by the employees.