ELEGANT GARMENTS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 5. 3. 2002 made in W. P. No. 15116 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the respondent imposing damages for the belated remittance of the provident fund contribution.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that by letter dated 29. 10. 1984 the appellant Garment Export Firm requested the respondent to allot Provident Fund Code number so as to enable the appellant to deduct provident fund subscription from its employees, but there was no reply. On 16. 12. 1984 the first respondent requested the Enforcement Officer to examine the applicability of the Act to the appellant establishment and submit a coverage proposal along with necessary Government order and the copy of the said letter was marked to the appellant. The Provident Fund Inspector visited the appellant factory and all the relevant documents were furnished before the Inspector and it was submitted before him that the Act can be applied only from November, 1984. It is the further case of the appellant that in spite of the best efforts taken, the respondent failed to allot code number to the appellant establishment and after the exemption period eligible under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act, the appellant deducted subscription from the employees, who were eligible to become as members under the Act and kept the money safely in the bank. The appellant have to deposit both the subscription deducted from the employees with the equal amount of contributions of the appellant for those eligible members from November, 1984. Since Code numbers for the establishment as well as to the subscribers were not allotted, the appellant could not remit the amount collected from the employees periodically, to the respondent. Since there was delay on the part of the respondent in allotting code number, appellant filed W. P. No. 2428 of 1986 before this court and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 29. 4. 1991, respondent by his proceedings dated 18. 2. 1992 allotted the code number TN/30041 to the appellant and immediately the appellant remitted the entire contribution of the employer and employees to the respondent.

(3.) RESPONDENT, by his proceeding dated 27. 12. 1993 issued a notice and called upon the appellant to explain as to why damages should not be levied from 1984-85 to 1992-93 for the belated remittance of Provident Fund contributions in respect of its employees. The appellant by its authorised representative appeared before the respondent and stated their objections by letter dated 27. 4. 1994. The plea raised by the appellant was that there was no delay in payment of contribution and due to the delay in allotting the code number there was delay in remittance. Immediately after the allotment of the code number the appellant remitted the entire amount and in spite of the objection and explanation given by the appellant, the respondent by order dated 20. 5. 1994 imposed damages to the tune of Rs. 2,89,984/-computed under section 14-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The said order was challenged by the appellant in the above writ petition.